Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-01-19 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Regular Meeting
NOTE: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., JANUARY 19, 2016 ruwx OF va' ii> Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation (5 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update (5 min.) PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update: 1) November 2015 Vail Business Review (5 min) 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports (10 min.) 5. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda 1) Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016, A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Vail and Pitkin County for Shared Emergency Dispatch Service Staffing; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto 2) Resolution No. 3, Series of 2016, Resolution Authorizing the Town of Vail to Grant a Utility/Access Easement to Holy Cross Energy; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto 3) Resolution No. 4, Series of 2016, A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Loveland Fire Rescue Authority for the Provision of Training; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. (5 min.) 6. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report: 1) Town of Vail Annual Community Meeting: March 8, Donovar Pavilion 2) Chamonix Development Engineer's Option of Probable Cost (EOPC) Information Memorandum (5 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler, Town Manager 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation and discussion on Council requested information regarding the Chamonix development options presented on December 15, 2015. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager and Steve Lindstrom, VLHA ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council consider the 1/19/2016 information and provide guidance on next steps. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2015, the Community Development Department presented council with Chamonix development options. As a result of that presentation, the council had requested further information: The purpose of this meeting is to provide the requested information. 1. How to ensure that the future developer completes the project to towns expectations under option 4. 2. Discussion of the history of the Vail Local Housing Authority 3. Detailed information on Development Agreements for Arosa Duplex, Red Sandstone Condominiums, Lion's Ridge Apartments and Middle Creek. 4. What is the correlation of time and timing to risk and level of control. 5. Present meeting notes or important take-aways from TC previous tour of Summit County. 8. ITEM/TOPIC: 1-70 Vail Underpass Update (5 min.) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No Action Required BACKGROUND: The 1-70 Vail Underpass project is now under contract between CDOT and Kraemer North America with an anticipated start date for major construction of April 4, 2016. Additional public outreach and a Public Open House is anticipated in March. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No action required. 9. ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Traffic Impact Fee & Transportation Master Plan Update (15 min) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study, discuss codifying a new Traffic Impact Fee, award Transportation Master Plan Update contract to FHU as a next step. BACKGROUND: The last time the town's traffic impact fee was updated was in 2006. Since then much has changed in Vail with regards to construction costs and anticipated future transportation infrastructure needs. Considering this and the resurgence in redevelopment, it is prudent to reassess and update the impact fee and the correlating 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue to move forward with codifying a Traffic Impact Fee by awarding a contract to FHU to update the Vail Transportation Master Plan. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning 1/19/2016 of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence, Planner ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, upon first reading. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive , Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District. The boundary amendment will provide a zoning more suitable for the project and allow appropriate redevelopment/expansion consistent with the Medium Density Multiple -Family District. It is anticipated that a Design Review Board (DRB) application for an addition to Unit E, the easternmost unit in the building, will be submitted subsequent to a successful rezoning of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Council approve on first reading Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District 11. ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016. An Ordinance Amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Religious Institutions as a Conditional Use in all zone districts except the Heavy Service (HS) District; Outdoor Recreation (OR); Natural Area Preservation (NAP); Hillside Residential (HR); Single Family Residential (SFR); Two -Family Residential (R) ; Two - Family Primary/Secondary (PS); Housing (H); Vail Village Townhomes (VVT); and Arterial Business (ABD); amending the definition of Religious Institutions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016, upon second reading. BACKGROUND: In September 2015, the Community Development Department was approached by a citizen concerning the lack of zoning districts that allow Religious Institutions. After considering the application, and also considering applicable federal laws, the Department determined that this issue extends beyond the commercial zone districts and needed greater consideration. This ordinance will also bring the Town's Zoning Regulations into greater conformance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 1/19/2016 Persons Act (RLUIPA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve with modifications, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016, upon second reading. 12. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:10 p.m.) NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING TOPICS AND ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Ongoing agenda items DRB/PEC updates WS - 15 min.; Information Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items: 30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5 min.; Town Manager Report: 5 min. Future agenda items: Council Retreat Follow up Discussion - 2/2 Gore Creek Water Quality Plan Update - 2/2 Community Survey Discussion - 2/2 Proposed future agenda items Review Matrix on Multi -Use Facilities - TBD Vail Municipal Building Remodel Update - TBD Cleanup Title 12, zoning amendments- TBD Vail Trails Update - TBD Environmental Strategic Plan Update - TBD Eagle County School District Meeting w/ Board - TBD Ford Park Leases - TBD Peer City Visit to Aspen - TBD Open Lands Strategic Plan - TBD Pedestrian Crossings at Roundabouts & Bus Shelters Discussion - TBD VRD Agreement for Skate Park - TBD Please call (970) 479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. 1/19/2016 TOWN OF VAIN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Participation 1/19/2016 ►owx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: January 6, 2016 DRB Meeting Results January 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 1/19/2016 rowN of va MEMBERS PRESENT Peter Cope Doug Cahill Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo Andy Forstl DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING January 6, 2016 Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1. Breakaway West -963 Lions Ridge Loop 2. Streich Residence -5097 Main Gore Drive 3. Fischer Residence -2636 Davos Trail MAIN AGENDA Streich Residence DRB150373 Final review of an addition 5097 Main Gore Drive/Lot 2 & 3, Block 1, Bighorn 5th Addition Applicant: Frederick C. Streich ACTION: Table to January 20, 2016 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl VOTE: 5-0-0 2. Happy Place LLC DRB150554 Final review of an addition 4512 Streamside Circle Unit A/Lot 14, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Happy Place LLC, represented by Jeff Long ACTION: Approved with Conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITION(S): 2:OOpm 3:OOpm Jonathan Chris 1. The applicant shall augment the landscape plan with the addition of four (4) 2 -inch caliper Aspen trees. 3. Fischer Residence DRB150560 Conceptual review of an addition 2636 Davos Trail/Lot 2, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Randall Fischer ACTION: N/A 4. Town of Vail DRB150562 Final review of an exterior alteration (bridge railing) Kinnikinnick Road/Vail Intermountain Subdivision Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Chad Salli ACTION: Approve MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl Page 1 VOTE: 5-0-0 Brian Jonathan 1/19/2016 5. Breakaway West DRB 150548 Jonathan Final review of an exterior alteration (fagade) 963 Lions Ridge Loop, Buildings 100 and 200/1-ot B3, Block B, Lions Ridge Filing 1 Applicant: Breakaway West HOA, represented by Pierce Architecture ACTION: Approved with Conditions MOTION: Forstyl SECOND: Cope VOTE: 3-0-2 Kjesbo and Pierce recused CONDITION(S): 1. The Applicant shall paint the wing walls adjacent to the garage doors consisting of timber and concrete to match the proposed stone. 2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detail of the exterior staircases including the areas located behind the stairways for review and approval. 6. McDonalds DRB150351 Jonathan Conceptual Review of exterior alteration 2171 N. Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing #3 Applicant: McDonalds Corp, represented by MPG ACTION: N/A STAFF APPROVALS Lublan SA Residence DRB150542 Jonathan Final review of changes to approved plans (windows) 68 East Meadow Drive Unit 501/1-ot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Lublan, SA., represented by Hilda Solorzano Deluca, Currents Jewelers DRB150540 Jonathan Final review of a sign (business ID) 302 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 105/1-ot I, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5 (Mill Creek Condo) Applicant: Rob and Barb DeLuca, represented by Tamie LeBlanc Willow Bridge Vail Realty LLC DRB150552 Brian Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/roof) 1 Willow Bridge Road Unit 44/1-ot 2, Sonnenalp Subdivision Applicant: Willow Bridge Vail Realty LLC, represented by Suman Architects Vail PBK LLC DRB150553 Brian Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/doors) 1699 Geneva Drive/Lot 1, Matterhorn Village Filing 1 Applicant: Vail PBK LLC, represented by Dave D'Hulster Glenn Residence DRB150556 Jonathan Final review of a change to approved plans (roof) 5116 Main Gore Drive North/Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn 5th Addition Applicant: Jimme Kerr Glenn, represented by Intention Architecture Westhaven Partners LLC DRB150557 Jonathan Final review of a change to approved plans (windows) 1240 Westhaven Circle/Lot 31, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Westhaven Partners LLC, represented by Scott Turnipseed Architects Cupid LTD DRB150559 Jonathan Page 2 1/19/2016 Final review to a change to approved plans (windows) 1628 Golf Terrace Unit B/Lot 1, Block 1, Warren Pulis Subdivision Applicant: Cupid LTD, represented by Pure Design Studio 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Page 3 1/19/2016 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VAR:A January 11, 2016, 1:00 AM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members present Brian Gillette, Webb Martin, John Rediker, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz, Kirk Hansen Members Absent: John Ryan Lockman 2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow for converting three indoor tennis court into parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150035). - 5 min. Applicant: L -O Westhaven, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Mr. Neubecker: This project has been approved by staff. We are happy to answer any questions. (This item was not called up by the commission, resulting in the staff approval standing.) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) - 120 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristen Bertuglia Ms. Bertuglia introduced the Strategic Plan for water quality improvements on Gore Creek and the representatives from the Town, CDOT, and consultants from Timberline Aquatics, Inc. and Lotic Hydrological. Bertuglia noted that Mery Lapin, Vail resident and homeowner on Gore Creek, submitted a letter via email to the PEC for public record regarding a request for increased setbacks from Gore Creek. Charlie Turnbull, Public Works — Reviewed where the town applies deicers (magnesium chloride and sand): bottom of Sandstone Drive, cars can slide out. On Lionsridge Loop, that area is bad. Between the gas stations at West Vail, Kinnickinnick and Vail Valley Drive, we use magnesium chloride). We use sand/salt in other locations. It can get into flower beds. Gillette — Is CDOT using an alternative to mag chloride? Why can't we use that? I thought these modified agents were better than sand and cinders. Turnbull- I'm not sure on that. We put mag chloride down during a storm. Seth Mason, Hydrologist, Lotic Hydrological— Kristen asked me to talk with you about data quality, how data is collected and analyzed. Mr. Mason displayed a map showing water quality data collection locations. Gray dots are historical, green dots are consistently collected (currently). Data collected includes macro invertebrate (bugs) and water quality collection sites. We coordinate samples with other agencies that also collect samples and create data. There is a lot of work done every year to make sure we are collecting the best data for the watershed. Gillette — Is there overlap where more data collection is not needed? Mason- There are groups that discuss data collection to ensure there is the least amount of overlap possible. Gore Creek is not the only place being looked at. He showed the location of data collection sites. Data collected is analyzed, interpreted, compared to State of Colorado data, and used to create a water quality report card. Dave will speak specifically about macroinvertebrate data and conditions collected. David Rees, Aquatic Biologist and owner of Timberline Aquatics, Inc— Macro -invertebrates are surrogates to test the health of waters in the west. Different types of bugs are collected in the water samples and separated out. Above the Black Gore Creek confluence with Gore Creek, we get healthy scores, but the creek is impaired below this area. Scores below 50 starts to indicate problems. Below 40 means there is impairment. Below this confluence they drop off quickly. Pratt — Please explain the tributaries on the map and where red and green dots are shown on the river. Mason- We had some samples on tributaries collected by middle school students, one year only. Big Horn Creek is the location you are asking about. We suspect there may be a data collection error as a result of this one time 1/19/2016 student project. We generate our conclusions based on main Gore Creek data collected. Rediker — How many years of collection are we talking about? Mason — 4-5 years. Four sites on Black Gore Creek. Dave Rees — We have consistently had passing scores at the Forest Service boundary, then they drop off. We have consistently had passing scores, then they drop off in East Vail and remain low throughout town. We classify macroinvertebrate data based on function. MMI Scores were reviewed. Last 4-5 years data was reviewed. Black Gore Creek and above were good scores. We had good scores back in 2001. Since around 2009 we have had data showing impairment. Mason — Sampling was much sparser prior to 2008. Time and location collections in 2001 were not consistent. Dave Rees — I think the years we had good data we had higher water flows. That results in lower concentrations. Pratt — The spikes in bug scores in 2011 were pretty clear. This would seem to point to asking why? All fingers we have seen seem to point to East Vail, and that area did pretty well in 2011. Rees — The sites were still low, just higher than the previous year. Ford Park remained low. Other analysis tools allow comparison with spring data. Rediker — Do bug counts around 50 mean its just average? Rees — Score ranges from 0 — 100. Score of 50 indicates some stress to the stream. Below 60 probably indicates some stress on the stream. Mason — These metrics are based on observed, not expected score. Gore Creek might be expected to have a higher score. Rees — There are specific metrics designed to identify specific problems. HBI scores from 2013-2014 are designed to detect impacts from nutrients. HBI Scores above 6 are considered bad impacts from nutrients, we do not see that in Gore Creek, therefore you wouldn't consider nutrients a major issue even though they are a piece of the puzzle, there are a lot of potential sources of nutrients. Rediker — Can nutrient levels be affected by household drains? Rees — Not so much by what you might think of as toxic, but influenced by sedimentation. (Household drains go to the sanitary sewer). Rees went on to explain the EPT metric within the MMI that look at sensitive taxa (bug species) to indicate stressors. Rees — Black Gore Creek and Gore Creek were at scores above 20. 12-15 is considered good. This shows that the sensitive macroinve rte b rate taxa are affected by specific pollutants. Pratt — Spring runoff appears to impact macroinvertebrates. Rees — Scouring (from high water flows) may have had a minor impact. Rediker — Why would you not do testing in summer? Rees — Some species show up in fall. Usually what is in the river in fall will remain until spring. Some species don't show up until late August. Gillette — If we get a cold snap, will that affect the populations? Mason — Yes, if you get a big emergence, a cold snap could have an impact. Hansen — Do you agree with CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) definition of an impaired stream? Rees — Yes, in general I do. In some cases I think their tools are biased due to elevation. Rediker — 50 MMI score of 50 is not that good if 42 is impaired. Rees — Ideally I would like to see scores above 60. 1/19/2016 Gillette — Who has a good stream? Who are we compared to? Mason — Gore Creek above the developed area would be a good comparison. Rees — I have seen scores in the 80s above Boulder in the foothills. Rediker — Is it possible to sample (dissect) bugs to see what is killing them off? Rees- Hard to tell what is causing impacts. Looks like there are a variety of things causing impacts. Mason — This kind of testing is very expensive and likely wouldn't result in any more specific data than we already have. Rediker — Are we testing enough? Rees — There may be some additional locations that could be sampled. We take three samples each time. We are trying to get numbers as specific as possible. Gillette — There are pipes discharging into the creek. Can we sample directly at those locations? Rees — Yes, samples could be taken to identify pollutants to identify concentration of pollutants. Mason — Collecting at sources is one of the strategies in the plan. Bertuglia — Not every stormwater outfall has been identified as a collection location. We will test the priority collection locations identified by SGM in their field survey and continue through the list. Mason — We are not looking for one smoking gun. The weighted evidence indicates this is non -point source pollution. There is a finite amount of time and dollars available. Looking for the smoking gun will cost a lot of money and may not result in a solution. You can do a lot of sampling for specific pollutants, but that is extremely expensive. Conclusion of consultant team is that most cost effective approach is more general. Gillette — Frustrated that the issues that are causing problems can't be addressed, like CDOT road maintenance and use of pesticides. Mason — There is a real opportunity to make changes. May take time, investment and education to property owners. Rediker — A lot of different people taking samples. Is there a problem with different entities taking samples? Mason — That is beneficial, and the Town of Vail partners with other agencies, ensuring that samples are collected and tested in the same manner is important. That is occurring now. Mike Goolsby — Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) — Presentation on CDOT Snow Removal Operations. Region 3, Section 2, Utah to Eisenhower Tunnel. Has been responsible for this area for past 8 years. Historically we have used salt/sand mix. We have switched to ice slicer/sand mix. Allows dilution faster. We use magnesium chloride in areas where we don't need a lot of traction. Mad Chloride is a generic term, not necessarily what we use all the time. When CDOT started in liquid deicing, it did include the cost as a decision factor. 27% solution per gallon of water. Equipment we have now is electronic, 2% error rate once they are calibrated. Early 90s Vail Pass we used 40,000 — 60,000 tons per year on Vail Pass. Late 1990s 8,000 — 12,000 tons per year. Vail Area MM 169 -180 2,500 — 3,500 tons. 20% salt in this mix. 2008 changed to ice slicer. Now we are at 1500 - 2300 tons per year. Liquid usage — prior to 2009 about 1,000,000 gallons per year. Transition to cold weather modified products, and reduced usage by 200,000 per year. 15-40 gallons per lane mile. Mag Chloride was 40-60 gallons per lane mile. Martin — Are you testing the material being hauled out? Goolsby — No, just filling it. Greg Hall, Director of Public Works— We have identified some small areas for berms, that could hold a bit of material. But there are wetlands in some of these areas. Pratt — Please explain the liquids that you use. Goolsby- I brought Material Safety Data Sheets to explain what is in the liquids. Cold Weather Modified Products 1/19/2016 allows freezing temperatures to drop below 18-20 below zero. Causes the mag chloride to freeze at a lower temperature, still a mag chloride product. This uses less product per lane mile. At best salt/sand works at 16-18 degrees. Turnbull — We use CDOT specs on sand/salt mixtures. Gillette — What is better for the creek? Goolsby — Solution depends if you want bare pavement or snowy roads. Salt/sand is probably cheaper and better for the Creek. But you would not have as many skiers in town. Pratt — What happens to the liquid spray? Does it evaporate? Goolsby — Much of the material stays on the road after it dilutes out. It makes the road look black. Once it snows again, it starts to spread out. Martin — What are the differences between West Vail, East Vail and Vail Pass.? Goolsby — More mag chloride is used west of town. On the pass we "pre -wet" with de-icers. We don't need to do that in town. We switch to sand when it's very cold. We need more traction on the pass than in town. Mason — Speed of the creek should not affect macroinvertebrates. Failing macroinvertebrate data indicates a chronic problem, depending on time, not depending on the volume or speed or gradient of the water. Rediker — Do we have any idea how much sediment has been built up over the years? Mason — The TMDL report on the Basin of Last Resort annually can provide that data. Goolsby — I'm not the one to ask. CDOT picks up everything they can get to, we pick up more than we put down, but there is a lot of sand built up down the slopes. Rediker — Is there any way to tell how much the sand basins are catching? Goolsby — Just through visual inspection of how full the basins are (and the TMDL report will indicate how much is removed). Rediker- What are the main components of the de-icers that we should be concerned about? Goolsby- All products used go through a certification process, especially related to heavy metals, by Pacific Snow Fighters (PSF). The specifications are considered good. Chlorides and heavy metals are the primary concern. Gillette- Should we look at alternative deicers to see if they affect stream health? (cost share) Goolsby- There are more environmentally friendly products but they cost $2-$3 per gallon where our current mix costs 28 cents per gallon. It would require someone to pay to go through the certification process for a new product. (cost) Rediker- Is historical sand build up a potential problem waiting to happen? Mason -Town is working with CDOT on collaborative plans related to this. Looking to see if amounts are increasing or decreasing. Jen Klaetsch -Region #3 CDOT-Outlined new technology related to operations and maintenance. Discussed planning and implementation efforts. This includes a SCAP (Sediment Control Action Plan) for Black Gore Creek. Partnerships between the town and CDOT were highlighted. Hansen -Is there a plan for a third lane going up Vail Pass? Hall- No additional funding being put to this project at this time. Some monies put toward this in the past (2010?) Kurz -How do CDOT activities relate to other similar operations in their locations? Goolsby -There are some minor differences but most areas of the state use similar approaches. Some areas can use different applications because of different climate and air quality attainment areas. Martin -How do we compare to City of Jackson, WY that seems to keep snow on the roads? 1/19/2016 Goolsby -That is not an option on the highway. Will look to the town for further information on that. Hall -Different areas have different priorities. Roundabouts and Frontage Roads take priority vs. back roads where snow packed is permitted until resources allow removal. Pratt -Instead of attempting to catch all the runoff can't we just stock the rivers with bugs? Rees -These bugs have evolved for this particular habitat and that is not an effective option because the stressor that kills the bugs would continue to exist. Pratt -Is the arsenic naturally occurring causing a problem we can't fix? Rees -The data seems to show more localized impacts on bugs where the arsenic impact would be more evenly spread out. Mason -The arsenic is largely a drinking water quality standard, different levels and effects. Rediker-Is there evidence in the stream of sand build up adversely impacting the ability of the bugs? Rees -I have not seen the sand as the problem. Thinks the sand gets pushed out due the high gradient of the stream. Pratt- It seems the creek is much fuller of cobble and does this have an adverse effect? Rees- Has also witnessed this but does not feel it impacts the bugs. Mason- The whole valley is full of river rock so what you are seeing is the stream excavating itself. Kassmel-Through floodplain studies we are seeing the creek rise from cobble moving from tributaries into the creek. The creek changes over time. Pratt -How does it affect the gradient and the bugs? Kassmel-It is cleaned out over time. Rees -It should not affect the bug population. Bertuglia-How does an improper pesticide spraying event affect bugs from one season to the next, as in, how quickly can the communities recover? Rees -The bugs should be able to recover the following season from a spraying event. Kurz- The ten year time frame set by the state starts when? And are there intermediate milestones? Bertuglia- Listing was December, 2011, clock started in 2012. Town Council recommended the plan look at a 5 year plan as opposed to the state 10 year plan. There are project and budget milestones but not a bug level milestone. The MMI score and aquatic life use listing is new and therefore there is not much precedent or model for turning the MMI scores around. Piihlir. CnmmPnt Lamont -Did Mery Lapin's letter make it into the record? To summarize, Mery is requesting additional setbacks from the streams. Is there a funding mechanism for the monitoring included in the plan? Bertuglia — Yes, ongoing monitoring is an action item and will continue to be performed by the town and through support to the Eagle River Watershed Council — USFS sampling. Hall-CDOT has been contributing to the efforts. Pratt -I anticipate funding being allocated as the plan comes on line. Final Comments Gillette -Good work. Hope the conversations have been helpful. The top actions seem a bit disorganized at first glance to a layman. Wishes it had more structure but it's not for the layman so I can vote for this. Webb -Supports the work done to date. Not point in delaying moving forward. 1/19/2016 Kurz -Comfortable moving forward. Staff and the consultants have done good work. We are on track. There is no smoking gun or magic bullet. Need to move forward with the recommendations in an expeditious way. Hansen -Appreciates the systematic approach. A lot of science involved. Need milestones. Are we making progress? Supports moving forward. Rediker-Thankful for all the work. Complex situation. Should we combine action items 24-28 or do we need to break them out? I will leave it to staff. A goal for us should be for a score of 60 MMI score or above. Coordination of the sampling methods is important. Might want to consider adding additional language concerning de-icers and their possible impacts. Are the water quality vaults working for this? Should we look at limiting the town's use of this? Should we use less de-icers or different de-icers? Martin -We should be testing the runoff from the sand berm in East Vail. (Klaetsch mentioned there was a study done on the sand in the berms in Summit County, largely found it was just sand but she will forward the study to Kristen). Gillette -Feels maybe the plan should be more general and worry about the details and the hundreds of items. Pratt -Thankful to staff. Thankful to CDOT. Thought the problem had a simple answer but supportive of CDOT efforts. Frustrated that we will throw 6 million dollars in to see if it works. We are still dumping salts and heavy metals into the creek. Pesticides are a contributor but regulating is a problem. All the efforts are good but not sure what the results are going to be. In favor of moving forward. Rediker-We are keeping action item #16 (pesticide applications)? Bertuglia-Yes, even though it has largely been determined that there is not much that can be done. Rediker-Would like Town Council to look more into this. Does not feel the exception provision in the statute has been adequately explained by Counsel. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-86-3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for "Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings" located at 461 Vail Valley Drive, Tract F2, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Specifically, this project includes the installation of parking in the Chalet Road right-of-way and the conversion of the existing tennis courts to pickle ball courts. (PEC150037) - 5 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker Table to January 25, 2016 Motion — Hansen Second — Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for an encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the encroachment of an addition to the Villa Valhalla Building into View Corridor #5, located at 384 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 10/Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150036) — 5 Min Applicant: Jose Pedro Valenzuela Rionda, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Table to January 25, 2016 Motion — Hansen Second — Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 6. Approval of Minutes December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Motion to Approve Motion- Rediker Second- Kurz Vote: 5-0-1 Hansen recused Informational Update 1. Peer Community Housing Comparison — George Ruther introduced Steve Lindstrom, Chair of the Vail Local Housing Authority. Mr. Lindstrom - Your packet should include a report from Melanie Rees on peer city housing issues. In the past, we have had too many jobs and not enough houses, or the reverse. Trend 15-20 years ago as more low density for -sale housing. Now the trend is higher density for -rent units. Higher density is a way to solve some of the housing problems. Aspen has had a RETT (Real Estate Transfer Tax) tax as a dedicated source for funding housing projects over the past 40 years. Government can't do it all. We can't 1/19/2016 wait for the government to do everything. We are trying to entice the private sector to take on this task. In the good times, we have required the private sectors to pay fees, but that does not result in many employee housing units getting built. We have met with staff, business leaders and builders to see how we can help to get private sector involved. In Lionshead, the rules were changed and the private sector responded with investments. We are looking at how we can change the rules to get private sector more involved. We need to talk with land owners and private sector to see if these ideas will work. We will work with staff to see if these ideas can make a difference. Some are larger tweaks to existing codes. Examples may be overlay districts, or redevelopment of the West Vail commercial core. We are past the small town problems. These are urban issues we are now facing. We need to start to think of our available land. We need to think that density is our friend. Maybe there are areas of surface parking lots in commercial areas where we can do some projects. Maybe think about tradable development rights to entice the private sector to help with these issues. Maybe the parking issues can be considered. Many developments are driven by the parking requirements. We are just starting this project and will keep you informed. We are welcome to your feedback. George Ruther — Housing Authority has done a lot of great work in this area. Some of the reforms proposed would take a fresh look at the way we have done things. Fundamentally something has to change. Housing Authority is looking to see if they can incent the private sector. Gillette — Earlier we talked about switching from low density to higher density developments. What is the Town looking for? Lindstrom — We see this as a continuum from dormitory style units to for -sale units. There are needs along the spectrum. Sometimes we think of for -rent product as only for party people. We need to think of housing as shelter. There are some people who live for decades in leased housing, but walking into it you would not know the difference. We need to make sure that our rules do not require reinventing the wheel to get projects built. Gillette — All this comes from the community surveys that identify the needs for employee housing. We wanted families to move back to Vail. When I look at Middle Creek with stack -em up rentals, we are just subsidizing Vail Resorts. But building homes for families is developing community; We need to look back at the original goal. Ruther — Like Steve said, we need to look at a variety of options. Every sector of the market is in need of some form of housing. There is not one plug to stop the leakage. We need to make inroads into each sector of the market. I don't think we will ever fully solve the housing problem. We need to look not only at the employee housing needs but also community development needs. Council will be talking about some of these issues tomorrow night. We need to be strategic due to the limited land available. Housing Authority will be in front of you in the next several months to discuss some of these options and ideas. System we have today is setup to get the results that we are getting. If we want different results we may need to change the system. Housing Authority is looking for your help to make some of these changes possible. Kurz — Thanks to Steve for taking on this least favorable position. Thank you for your work on behalf of the town. 2. Update on Employee Housing Policy & Zoning Review 8. Adjournment Motion - Kurz Second— Hansen Vote 6-0-0 Mr. Kurz will not attend the January 25, 2016 meeting. 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily January 8, 2016 1/19/2016 ►owx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update: 1) November 2015 Vail Business Review ATTACHMENTS: November 2015 Vail Business Review 1/19/2016 TOWN OF VAIL' 75 South Frontage Road West Finance Department Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2100 vailgov.com 970.479.2248 fax Vail Business Review November 2015 January 12, 2016 The November Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for November. Overall November sales tax decreased 1.1 % with Retail decreasing 2.7%, Lodging increased .7%, Food and Beverage increased 2.0 and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals) decreased 5.1 %. Excluding the Out of Town category, sales tax for the month of November was up 1.5%. Electronic filing and payment of Vail sales tax is now an option. Please visit www.vailgov.com/epay Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet are available on the internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from www.vailgov.com. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Kathleen Halloran at (970) 479-2116. Sincerely, LA Sally Lorton Sales Tax Administrator 1/19/2016 November TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN OF VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter November 2015 Sales Tax 1/12/2016 12:55:17 PM emGovPower Page 1 of 2 1/19/2016 November 2014 Collections November 2015 Collections November % Change VAIL VILLAGE Retail 136,847 144,253 5.41 % Lodging 97,162 113,172 16.48% F & B 148,565 155,381 4.59% Other 2,784 2,260 -18.84% Total 385,358 415,066 7.71 % LIONSHEAD Retail 57,096 52,845 -7.45% Lodging 62,042 65,909 6.23% F & B 45,571 50,569 10.97% Other 1,656 2,148 29.72% Total 166,365 171,472 3.07% CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL Retail 113,454 112,431 -0.90% Lodging 39,512 24,276 -38.56% F & B 38,237 30,982 -18.97% Other 4,401 4,283 -2.68% Total 195,604 171,973 -12.08% OUT OF TOWN Retail 96,643 83,627 -13.47% Lodging 16,357 13,279 -18.82% F & B 155 165 6.84% Utilities & Other 104,031 98,443 -5.37% Total 217,186 195,515 -9.98% 1/12/2016 12:55:17 PM emGovPower Page 1 of 2 1/19/2016 November TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN OF VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter November 2015 Sales Tax TOTAL Total 964,514 954,026 -1.09% RETAIL SUMMARY November November November 2014 2015 % Collections Collections Change Retail 404,039 393,157 -2.69% Lodging And Property Mgmt 215,074 216,636 0.73% Food and Beverage 232,528 237,099 1.97% Other 112,873 107,134 -5.08% Total 964,514 954,026 -1.09% RETAIL SUMMARY 1/12/2016 12:55:17 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 1/19/2016 November November November 2014 2015 % Collections Collections Change RETAIL -FOOD 78,673 78,280 -0.50% RETAIL -LIQUOR 28,056 28,417 1.28% RETAIL -APPAREL 55,292 56,158 1.57% RETAIL -SPORT 118,266 113,682 -3.88% RETAIL -JEWELRY 8,524 8,581 0.67% RETAIL -GIFT 4,431 2,592 -41.50% RETAIL -GALLERY 2,335 1,038 -55.55% RETAIL -OTHER 108,428 104,410 -3.71 % RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 34 0 -100.00% Total 404,039 393,157 -2.69% 1/12/2016 12:55:17 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 1/19/2016 TOWN OF VAIN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports 1/19/2016 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda 1) Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016, A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Vail and Pitkin County for Shared Emergency Dispatch Service Staffing; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto 2) Resolution No. 3, Series of 2016, Resolution Authorizing the Town of Vail to Grant a Utility/Access Easement to Holy Cross Energy; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto 3) Resolution No. 4, Series of 2016, A Resolution Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Loveland Fire Rescue Authority for the Provision of Training; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2 Serie of 2016 Resolution No. 3 Series of 2016 Resolution No 4 Series of 2016 1/19/2016 RESOLUTION NO. 2 Series 2016 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND PITKIN COUNTY FOR SHARED EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICE STAFFING; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the Council passed Resolution No. 17, Series 2015 approving the Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of Emergency Dispatch Service Staffing between the Town and Pitkin County; WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding contains certain obligations with respect to requests for extra duty staffing and compensation; WHEREAS, the Town and Pitkin County desire to revise the minimum assignment hours and compensation rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding and authorizes the Town Manager to enter into the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Town in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney. 2. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2016. Dave Chapin, Town Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Resolution No. 2, Series 2016 1/19/2016 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE TOWN OF VAIL FOR THE PROVISION OF SHARED EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICE STAFFING The Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of Emergency Dispatch Services Staffing dated August 12, 2015, by and between the TOWN OF VAIL, a Municipal Corporation, (the "Town") and PITKIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, on behalf of its Pitkin County Regional Emergency Dispatch Center (the "County") is hereby amended as follows: Paragraph 2. Requests for Extra Du Staffing. The minimum assignment shall be for "two (2) hours" will be revised to the minimum assignment shall be for "eight (8) hours." Paragraph 3. Compensation. Compensation shall be revised from "$37.00 per hour per Extra Duty Staff person, excluding travel time" to the "rate of the particular dispatcher's current overtime hourly rate plus five (5) percent to cover employee benefits per Extra Duty Staff, excluding travel time." The revised compensation rates shall be effective as August 12, 2015, the date of the original Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, round-trip mileage from the dispatcher's home to the dispatching agency's offices per trip will be reimbursed at the current year's rate of reimbursement, which for the calendar year 2015 is $0.575 (Fifty-seven and one- half cents) per mile. In all other respects the Memorandum of Understanding will remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of Emergency Dispatch Services Staffing is executed and entered into on this day of January, 2016. TOWN OF VAIL :E BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO L-02 Stan Zemler, Town Manager Steven F. Child, Chair 1/19/2016 rowN of vain Memorandum To: Town Council •u 1117fC.1��Re Date: 1-19-15 Subject: Holy Cross Energy Easement Tract A SUMMARY Holy Cross Energy (HCE) currently has an easement across Tract A along Rockledge Road for overhead power lines. In a coordinated effort between HCE, the adjacent homeowners and the town, a portion of these lines will be buried. In order to provide HCE with the rights to have buried powered lines within Tract A, the existing easement needs to be updated. Attached is a copy of the new easement that should be granted to HCE to allow for the buried power lines. Staff Recommends approving this easement to HCE. 1/19/2016 RESOLUTION NO.3 Series of 2016 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF VAIL TO GRANT A UTILITY/ACCESS EASEMENT TO HOLY CROSS ENERGY; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Town is the owner of certain real property generally described as Tract A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing in Vail, Colorado, (the "Property"); WHEREAS, Holy Cross Energy has existing infrastructure within an existing 20' Overhead Electric easement across the property, and WHEREAS, the Town desires to grant an additional utility/access easement to Holy Cross Energy within the existing 20' Overhead Electric easement, pursuant to the terms of the Holy Cross Energy Underground Right -Of -Way Easement (the "Easement") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Council hereby approves the Easement and authorizes on behalf of the Town in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 19th day of January, 2016. Dave Chapin Town Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Resolution No. 3, Series 2016 1/19/2016 September 17, 2015 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 Town of Vail Attn: Tom Kassmel 1309 Elkhorn Dr. Vail, CO 81657 RE: Utility Easement Tract A on Rockledge Road Dear Tom: Enclosed you will find a proposed Holy Cross Energy Underground Right -Of -Way Easement across Town of Vail property, Tract A, currently used for overhead utilities on the upper part of Rockledge Road. As you are aware, the homeowners in this area are entering into contracts with Holy Cross Energy and Western Pipe Way to convert those overhead power lines to underground in conjunction with your joint project with ERW&SD. Holy Cross Energy is comfortable proceeding with the project under our existing rights, however, we would like to memorialize language clarifying the addition of underground electric facilities with the attached easement. Should the enclosed easement meet with your approval, please have the Mayor execute it and return the original to me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Jeffrey P. Vroom, Engineering Department jvroom@holycross.com (970) 947-5425 JPV:Electronic Enclosure W/O#1 5-22391 :52-51 ,52:Vail - VV1 ,B7, Lots 4,7,8A,9A Conversion 15-22391 Kassmel 1/19/2016 HOLY CROSS ENERGY UNDERGROUND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter called "Grantor"), for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation whose post office address is P. O. Box 2150, Glenwood Springs, Colorado (hereinafter called "Grantee") and to its successors and assigns, the right of ingress and egress across lands of Grantor, situate in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Tract A, A Replat of a Portion of Block 7, Vail Village First Filing, and Lot 2 of Raether Minor Subdivision, according to the Final Plat thereof, situated in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described at Reception Numbers 722440, in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Eagle, Colorado. And, to construct, reconstruct, repair, change, enlarge, re -phase, operate, and maintain an underground electric transmission or distribution line, or both, with the underground vaults, conduit, fixtures and equipment used or useable in connection therewith, together with associated equipment required above ground, within the above mentioned lands, upon an easement described as follows: An easement within the Existing 20' Overhead Electric Easement shown on Tract A on the aforementioned Final Plat. The rights herein granted specifically allow Grantee to install additional underground and/or pad -mounted facilities within the easement described herein. It shall be the Grantor's responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed hereunder on said real property are accessible by Grantee's boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at all times. The use of such access by Grantee shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping, or other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer and switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults shall be even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow) and accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers and switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface within ten (10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping, and other obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non -opening sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Grantor hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of this paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations which may occur as soon as notified by Grantee. Said corrections will be made at the sole cost and expense of Grantor. Together with the right to remove any and all trees, brush, vegetation and obstructions within said easement and the right to pile spoils outside said easement during construction and maintenance, when such is reasonably necessary for the implementation and use of the rights hereinabove granted. In areas where vegetation is disturbed by the above described use of the easement, the ground surface shall be seeded using a standard native mix by Grantee. Grantor agrees that landscaping or other surface improvements added on said easement after the date of execution hereof will be minimized and that Grantee will not be responsible for damage to said additional landscaping or surface improvements caused by exercise of its rights granted by this easement. Grantor agrees that all facilities installed by Grantee on the above described lands, shall remain the property of Grantee, and shall be removable at the option of Grantee. Grantor covenants that it is the owner of the above described lands and that the said lands are free and clear of encumbrances and liens of whatsoever character, except those held by the following: All those of Record. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said right-of-way and easement, together with all and singular, the rights and privileges appertaining thereto, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever. W/0#1 5-22391 :52-51 ,52:Vail - VVI ,B7, Lots 4,7,8A,9A Conversion:9/1 7/15 15-22391 Kassmel JV Page 1 of 2 1/19/2016 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused these presents to be duly executed on this day of , 20 The individual signing this Holy Cross Energy Underground Right -of -Way Easement hereby represents that he/she has full power and authority to sign, execute, and deliver this instrument. STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20 , by municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation By: day of Address: Mayor as Mayor of the TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado Notary Public W/O#1 5-22391 :52-51 ,52:Vail - VVI ,B7, Lots 4,7,8A,9A Conversion:9/1 7/15 15-22391 Kassmel JV Page 2 of 2 1/19/2016 RESOLUTION NO. 4 Series 2016 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND LOVELAND FIRE RESCUE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROVISION OF TRAINING; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Fire Department and the Loveland Fire Rescue Authority (the "Parties") provide fire protection services for the safety and welfare of their communities; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work cooperatively by making efficient and effective use of firefighting and fire rescued training resources for the benefit of each of their communities; and WHEREAS, the Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: 1. The Council hereby approves the Intergovernmental Agreement and authorizes the Town Manager to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement on behalf of the Town in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A and in a form approved by the Town Attorney. 2. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19`h day of January, 2016. Dave Chapin, Town Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Resolution No. 4, Series 2016 1/19/2016 EXHIBIT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF TRAINING THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of January, 2016, by and between the Town of Vail -Vail Fire and Emergency Services (Town) and the Loveland Fire Rescue Authority ("Authority") concerning the provision of training and training facilities by the Authority to the Town. RFC'ITAI NC WHEREAS, in accordance with C.R.S. § 29-1-201, the Town and the Authority (individually referred to as the "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") as governmental entities are permitted and encouraged to make the most efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with other governments; and WHEREAS, in accordance with C.R.S. § 29-1-203, governments may cooperate or contract one with another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully authorized to each of the respective units of governments; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Town (individually referred to herein as the "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") provide fire protection services for the safety and welfare of their citizens; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work cooperatively by making efficient and effective use of firefighting and fire and rescue training resources for the benefit of each Party's citizens; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to have its fire and rescue personnel ride along with the Authority's personnel as part of the Town's training program in order to improve the fire and rescue services provided within its jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Services. a. Ride -Along on Calls for Service. i. The Authority will allow members of the Town fire and rescue personnel to ride along and participate in Authority calls for service for the sole purpose of fire and rescue related training of the Town's fire and rescue personnel pursuant to the terms of this agreement. ii. Schedule. The Authority and the Town will mutually agree upon a schedule for the Town personnel to ride with Authority personnel. 1/19/2016 iii. Equipment. The Town shall be responsible for the provision of all equipment (including bunker gear and personal protective equipment), vehicles or other machinery or equipment deemed necessary by the Authority for the Town's fire and rescue personnel to ride along and participate in calls for service with Authority personnel. 2. Term. The terms of this Agreement shall begin on the date first set forth above and continue through January 31, 2017. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year periods, unless earlier terminated as provided for in paragraph 16. 3. Liability. The Parties agree that during the time the Town fire and rescue personnel are riding along and participating in calls for service pursuant to this Agreement, any liability which accrues under the provision of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (C.R.S. §24-10-101, et seq.) ("Act") as a result of a negligent act or omission of the Town or of its employees shall be imposed upon the Town and not the Authority. In addition, the Town agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Authority against any and all judgments, costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred by the Authority related to its performance under this Agreement that may result from any negligent act or omission by the Town or its employees. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the notice requirements, defenses, immunities and limitations of liability that the Authority and its officers and employees may have under the Act and under any other law. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. If any firefighter or other personnel of the Town is injured, disabled or dies as a result of performance under this Agreement while within the boundaries of the Authority, said individual shall remain covered by, and eligible for, the workers compensation and firefighters pension benefits which said individual would otherwise be entitled if the injury, disability or death had occurred within the boundaries of the Town. 5. Insurance Requirements. a. Policies. The Town shall procure and keep in force during the duration of this Agreement the following insurance policies and shall provide the Authority with a certificate of insurance prior to commencing riding along and participating in calls for service: i. Comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the Town and naming the Authority as an additional insured with minimum combined single limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. ii. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance insuring the Town and naming the Authority as an additional insured against any liability for personal injury, 1/19/2016 bodily injury, or death arising out of the use of motor vehicles and covering operations on or off the site of all motor vehicles controlled by the Town which are used in connection with this Agreement, whether the motor vehicles are owned, non -owned, or hired, with a combined single limit of at least $1,000,000. iii. Workers' compensation insurance. b. Requirements. Required insurance policies shall be obtained from companies qualified to do business in Colorado. Comprehensive general and automobile policies shall be for the mutual and joint benefit and protection of the Town and the Authority. Such policies shall provide that the Authority, although named as an additional insured, shall nevertheless be entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its officers, employees, and agents by reason of negligence of the Town, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or business invitees. Such policies shall be written as primary policies not contributing to and not in excess of coverage the Authority may carry. 6. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to any person, entity or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any other agreement presently in effect. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to use of the Training Facility and any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by the Parties. 8. Governing Law and Venue. It is expressly understood and agreed by and between the Parties that this Agreement is made in and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and venue shall be Larimer County, Colorado. 9. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party. 10. Relationship of Parties. The Parties enter into this Agreement as separate and independent governmental entities and each shall maintain such status throughout the term of this agreement. Officers, employees and agents of one Party are not officers, employees or agents of the other Party. 11. Effect of Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to, nor should it be construed to: effect or extend the legal responsibilities of either Party; or create or modify preexisting legal obligations, if any. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. Any services performed or expenditures made in connection with this Agreement by either Party shall be deemed conclusively to be for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property of such Party. 1/19/2016 12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of original counterparts, all of which evidence only one agreement. The Parties agree that counterpart signatures of this Agreement shall be acceptable and that execution of this Agreement in the same form by each and every Party shall be deemed to constitute full and final execution of this Agreement. 13. Headings. Paragraph headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall in no way define, limit or prescribe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. 14. Construction of Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning as if it was prepared by both Parties and shall be deemed to be and contain the entire agreement between the Parties. There shall be deemed to be no other terms, conditions, promises, understandings, statements or representations, expressed or implied, concerning this Agreement, unless set forth in writing and signed by both Parties. 15. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and the respective successors and permitted assigns. 16. Termination. Any Party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Party to this Agreement. 17. Notices. Any notice under this Agreement to a Party shall be effective upon receipt at the addresses set forth below. Fire Rescue Authority: Fire Chief Loveland Fire Rescue Authority 410 East Fifth Street Loveland, Colorado 80537 Town of Vail: Fire Chief 2399 North Frontage Road West Vail, CO, 81657 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Town of Vail Stan Zemler, Town Manager ATTEST: 1/19/2016 Secretary LOVELAND FIRE RESUCE AUTHORITY Jeffrey M. Swanty, Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary M lot-MlivinO • •C_►l Attorney 1/19/2016 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report: 1) Town of Vail Annual Community Meeting: March 8, Donovan Pavilion 2) Chamonix Development Engineer's Option of Probable Cost (EOPC) Information Memorandum PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler, Town Manager ATTACHMENTS: Chamonix Memorandum 1/19/2016 Hpmnranrli im To: Vail Town Council From: George Ruther, Director of Community Development Date: January 19, 2016 Subject: Chamonix Development — Phase I Site Access and Infrastructure Improvements Purpose of the Memorandum The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an informational update on the progress and schedule in the installation of the site access and infrastructure improvements in the Chamonix neighborhood. The decision on the development approach to the site access and infrastructure construction (Phase 1) has already been made. The Town of Vail will finance the cost of the construction, and with the help of a construction administration team, construct and complete the necessary site access and infrastructure improvements in the Chamonix neighborhood. The team will be comprised of town staff, private consultants and project managers, and the contractor's team. This action helps the Town Council achieve its critical action of "growing a thriving and balanced community' Background In June of 2015, the Vail Town Council awarded a design contract for the Chamonix neighborhood to 359 Design and its principal, Will Hentschel. As formulated, the contract is separated into two distinct phases: 1) site access and infrastructure improvements, and 2) vertical building design and construction. Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers, located in Avon, Colorado, were selected by the Town to provide professional civil engineering services for the Phase 1 site access and infrastructure improvements. Their scope of services included, in part, Site utility plans for private water and sanitary sewer service Site layout plans for on-site public water mains and sanitary sewer Detailed plan specifications and construction details Construction administration services Completion of an Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost 1 1/19/2016 To date, the final site utility plans, site layout plans, and detailed specifications and construction details have been completed. All approvals and entitlements from the appropriate reviewing agencies have been received (CDOT, ERWSD, utility companies, etc.). The Phase 1 plan documents have been prepared with opportunities to moderately alternate the current site plan design of the Chamonix neighborhood with no negative impact to the site access and infrastructure improvements design. The Phase 1 plan documents are ready to be released to qualified contractors for bid. Phase 1 Approved Budget The Vail Town Council approved $2M dollars in the 2015/16 Capital Improvements Budget for the Chamonix development. Approximately $206,000 (entitlements, engineering, legal, etc.) has been spent on the project to date. Roughly $1.79M dollars remains in the project budget. An Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (EOPC) has been completed. Based upon quantity take offs from the approved site plans and related construction documents, the EOPC of the Phase 1 site access and infrastructure improvements is estimated to be +/-$1.5M. This current estimate includes a sizeable contingency for unforeseeable circumstances. The project is currently out for bid. Final pricing based upon actual contractor bids will be available by early -February. The Town will be seeking a Unit Price contract. Schedule January 8, 2016 - Advertise Project for Bids January 15, 2016 - Release Bid Package to Bidders for Construction Estimates February 5, 2016 - Deadline for Bid Submittal March 1, 2016 - Recommend Preferred Contractor and Award Contract (Town Council) April 4, 2016 - Begin Construction of Phase 1 (weather permitting) 2 1/19/2016 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation and discussion on Council requested information regarding the Chamonix development options presented on December 15, 2015. PRESENTER(S): Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager and Steve Lindstrom, VLHA ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council consider the information and provide guidance on next steps. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2015, the Community Development Department presented council with Chamonix development options. As a result of that presentation, the council had requested further information: The purpose of this meeting is to provide the requested information. 1. How to ensure that the future developer completes the project to towns expectations under option 4. 2. Discussion of the history of the Vail Local Housing Authority 3. Detailed information on Development Agreements for Arosa Duplex, Red Sandstone Condominiums, Lion's Ridge Apartments and Middle Creek. 4. What is the correlation of time and timing to risk and level of control. 5. Present meeting notes or important take-aways from TC previous tour of Summit County. ATTACHMENTS: Chamonix Staff Memorandum VLHA Memorandum 1/19/2016 rowN ofvain Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: January 19, 2016 Subject: Additional Information Requested on Chamonix Development Options I. PURPOSE In a public meeting on this development held in December of last year staff was proposed and presented development approach options for Town Council consideration (public, private or public/private partnership). Subsequent to that presentation Staff was instructed to return to Town Council on the 19th of January of this year to provide additional information on specific elements of the options for Council consideration. The Request for Additional Information included: 1. How can the development agreement in Option #4 be made to ensure that the future developer completes the project(s) consistent with the Town's expectations and desired outcomes? How do we ensure it is legally enforceable? 2. What's the history of the Vail Local Housing Authority, i.e. roles and responsibilities, background of the members, etc.? What are some best practices currently being used by housing authorities and provide specific examples. 3. Provide more detailed information on the development approach examples shared, e.g., development agreements for Arosa Duplex, Middle Creek Village Apartments, Red Sandstone Townhomes, Lion's Ridge Village Apartments. 4. How does time or timing correlate to the tolerance for risk and level of control spectrums? 5. Provide meeting notes or important take-aways from the Town Council's previous site tour to Summit County 1/19/2016 II. DETAILS RE: DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES 1. Arosa Duplex Development The Town owns the site at 2657 Arosa Drive and the property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, which allowed the construction of two dwelling units. The Town issued RFP's for a contractor to design/build two Employee Housing Units (EHUs). Following the bidding process engaged JL Viele Construction to complete the project. The agreement included a Guaranteed Maximum Price clause based upon the cost of the work and the Design -Builder's Fee. The cost of the contract was set as a not to exceed price of $781,307 with any cost exceeding this amount to be paid by the Design -Builder with no recourse to the Town. The Design -Build Contract was very specific on how changes, if any were justified, could be made. It stipulated a progress payment schedule based upon percentage of work completed and reimbursement of verifiable costs. Upon completion there was an incentive bonus of 30% of the entire amount of any cost savings in the project Town role: 1. TOV staff issued a Request for Qualification/Request for Proposals for Program Management firm. 2. Entered into agreement with Project Manager 3. The TOV retained 100%of the savings in the contingency and winter conditions budgets; 4. All plans assigned to the TOV Private Sector Role: 1. Managed Design, Entitlement, and Construction process through completion of units. 2. The Design -Builder provided a 1 -year warranty from TCO to the town and individual buyers; 3. The Design -Builder complied with all Vail zoning and building codes. 4. The Design -Builder paid all building permit fees. 5. The Design -Builder maintained all required standard insurance and "Builder's Risk" policies. 6. The Design -Builder achieved a LEED Certification for the project. Successes: 1. Two Deed Restricted EHU's for families 2. Two three bedroom attached single family homes at below market sales price 3. Affordable to Families of three or more 4. Leed Silver Certification on energy efficiency 5. Project was on-time and on -budget Changes: Town of Vail Page 2 1/19/2016 1. Contract with an Owner's representative to oversee project implementation 2. Do energy efficiency improvements but not seek Leed certification 3. Limit staff involvement to a manageable amount. 2. Middle Creek Development The Middle Creek Apartment Development was a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Project, utilizing 4% credits. The use of tax credits subjects the development to HUD regulations regarding such projects. The program is administered through CHFA. As a result, the majority of the 142 units were income restricted to those earning 60% of AMI or lower for the 15 -year LIHTC affordability period. Due to the complexity of tax credit deals, there were a myriad of paperwork and the Development Agreement was a lengthy document with four minor amendments. There was also a Land Lease Agreement, an Assignment Agreement (assigning partial ownership to VLHA), Notice on Non -Liability (for the VLHA & TOV), Master Deed Restriction, Deed of Trust, UCC Financing Agreement, and Program Submission. The VLHA acting as the special agent for the TOV, issued an RFP for developer proposals. Through a rigorous process, they selected Coughlin & Company, Inc. as the developer to design, submit for TOV approval, develop, build, own (subject to the Land Lease), operate and maintain the Project. VLHA role: 1. Reviewed and approved project program, budget, plan and schedule; 2. Entered into Land Lease Agreement; 3. Had deed restriction prepared and submitted; 4. Provided leasehold title for financing purposes; 5. Obtained waiver from TOV for plan review fees, sales and use taxes; 6. Modified agreements to financing requirements for LIHTC as necessary; 7. Monitored expenditure and procurement; 8. Limited Developer Fee to a maximum of 4 percent of development budget; 9. Limited property management fee to 5&1/2 percent of gross revenues from operations. Developer role: 1. Timely implemented the project in accordance with the Development Agreement; 2. Developed a project program to meet LIHTC and TOV deed restrictions requirements; 3. Obtained construction financing through private lenders and government sources; 4. Entered into a 50 -year land lease with no liability to VLHA or TOV under terms of lease; Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 5. At the end of the land lease all property and appurtenances, equipment, etc. are to revert to VLHA ownership; 6. Paid $1.00 per year rent for the land and according to sharing formula and a'/2 percent of operating revenue to the VLHA; 7. Offered early buy-out option to VLHA at 30 & 45 year intervals of the lease; 8. Demolished and removed existing child education center buildings and constructed new CEC and leased to TOV for $1.00/year, with a triple net lease structure; 9. Condominiumized project for potential future sale by VLHA of units, if so desired after expiration of LITHC affordability period and term of lease; 10. Paid VLHA a $250,000 Development Application & Monitoring Fee. Successes: 1. VLHA insulated TOV from process and risk; 2. Gained 142 new rental units, which have been fully rented since opening; 3. There were 98 quality year-round affordable rental units for households with incomes below 60% of AMI; 4. There were 44 market rate units available to local employers for seasonal or year-round employees; 5. Financing was completely independent of the Town; 6. The VLHA received and continues to receive an annual stipend for operations; 7. The VLHA had an interim buy-out option and reversion clause at the end of the land lease; 8. Terms of the deal and government subsidies made project more affordable; 9. TOV received a new Child Care Center at minimal cost; 3. Red Sandstone Development The Red Sandstone Townhome Development was a joint venture with the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERW&SD) to create employee housing. The District owned two-thirds of the property and the TOV owned one-third. Two basic subsidies that were used to help lower the cost of the project. The land was donated into the deal by both JV partners and a zero interest construction loan was made to the Developer to construct the units at cost plus a 6% developer fee. The loan was funded proportionately by the JV Partners. The Town contributed one-third of the total construction loan and the District contributed the rest. The pricing for the Red Sandstone units was determined on a square footage basis from the total cost of construction divided by the total square footage and assigned to each unit. There were 12 two-bedroom units, which were priced directly according to square footage cost. There were four, three-bedroom, units priced slightly above the square footage cost to lower the pricing on the two one -bedroom units. All 18 units were deed -restricted with a 3% cap on appreciation and a limit of 10% for allowed capital improvements. Town of Vail Page 4 1/19/2016 Town role: 1. Town pursued and obtained their portion of the land for the project from the USFS; 2. Once acquired Town contributed the parcel to the development; 3. Co-signed the Town of Vail applications for development review (i.e. Special Development District Amendment and Design Review applications; 4. Town, as the lead agency, bore all initial costs associated with the design, planning and development review of the development; 5. Town provided construction financing for the project on the pro -rata share of the square footage of the floor area of units to be ultimately owned by TOV; 6. Costs included, but not limited to permit and tap fees, excavation, building materials, site work, landscaping, change orders, labor, etc.; 7. Upon completion dedicated the land to homeowner's association; 8. Upon completion TOV took title to its Six units, then sold or leased to its employees; 9. Town had and still has first right of refusal on any unit resale; and second right of refusal on any unit not exercised by ERWSD; 10. Town established a maximum cap on appreciation for resales in order to ensure the long term affordability; 11. Town placed deed restrictions on all units consistent with those placed on units in Vail commons; 12. Town issued requests for proposals from which they selected a design team that will also be responsible for building the project; 13. Once contract was entered into the Town was bound to participation in the project. ERWSD Role: 1. Contributed 2 parcels of land owned by the District to the development; 2. Co-signed the Town of Vail applications for development review (i.e. Special Development District Amendment and Design Review applications; 3. Provided construction financing for the project on the pro -rata share of the square footage of the floor area of units to be ultimately owned by ERWSD; 4. Costs included, but not limited to permit and tap fees, excavation, building materials, site work, landscaping, change orders, labor, etc. 5. Upon completion dedicated the land to homeowner's association; 6. Upon completion ERWSD took title to its 12 units then sold or leased to its employees; 7. ERWSD had and still has first right of refusal on any unit resale; and second right of refusal on any unit not exercised by the Town; 8. ERWSD accepted price caps and deed restrictions placed upon the units by the Town; 9. Once contract was entered into ERWSD was bound to participation in the project. Town of Vail Page 5 1/19/2016 Successes: 1. TOV gained six EHUs at affordable prices; 2. TOV gained 12 units for ERWSD employees, who are now town residents; 3. Town shared risk in development proportionately with ERWSD; 4. Town maintained a level of control through development review, RFP, contracting, price capping, and deed restriction processes; 5. Town's investment leveraged 2 to 1 the number of EHUs developed; 4. Lion's Ridge Development There is no guaranteed method to assure that a development agreement for the sale of property to the private sector will achieve the Town's expectations and desired goals. Reasonable caution in the negotiations and use of zoning, development standards, deed restrictions, and other legal means can restrict the prospective options of the developer but can't guarantee results. However, the strategy employed in the Lion's Ridge Development Agreement and use of a Ground Lease with option to purchase can add another level of assurance. The Town having limited resources and needing a major redevelopment of the East portion of the Timber Ridge Village Apartments, decided to use a private sector developer to redevelop the property with a 35 -year ground lease with option to purchase. Town staff entered into a 120 -day exclusive negotiations process with Gorman and Company. A "bottom up" approach based upon carrying capacity of the site was used to determine development potential. (i.e., parking requirement, type of construction, surface parking, landscape areas, livability, etc.). This approach resulted in a project which was financially feasible and could be constructed. The resulting project proposal was: • Re -develop eastern 5.24 acres of the property • Remove 102 units in nine buildings • Construct four new buildings, three stories in height • 112 new units and an on-site management office • 84 two-bedroom units & 29 one -bedroom units • 74% - 26% two-bedroom to one -bedroom ratio • 100% rental property • 79 Deed Restricted Units or approximately 70% Town role: 1. Town agreed to lease property to developer for employee housing pursuant to ground lease; 2. Town subdivided Timber Ridge Subdivision with resubdivision of Lion's Ridge, Block C, Lots 1-5; 3. Town refunded 100% of all construction and building materials use tax to Developer; Town of Vail Page 6 1/19/2016 4. Town assigned a 0.01 % ownership interest to the VLHA to exempt the property from ad valorem taxes or refund any such taxes collected by them; 5. Town retained fee ownership of the property; 6. Town provided lease in consideration of rents, covenants, agreements and conditions set forth for a term of 35 years ending September 30, 2064; 7. Rent through December 31, 2024 was paid in the sum of $10 with a schedule of annual rents commencing on January 1, 2025; 8. Town permitted uses were: construct and operate 112 dwelling units, at least 70% of which shall be employee housing units in full compliance with the deed restriction; Private Sector Role: 1. Development was subject to Vail Town Code; 2. Paid all customary plan review, demolition and building permit fees for permits issued by the Town; 3. Obtained construction financing through private lenders. 4. Maintained access and ensured safe occupancy of Timber Ridge units; 5. Had sole responsibility for cost of all improvements, buildings, structures, signage, streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements constructed or installed by or for Developer on the property; 6. Developer made a one time payment in lieu of transportation improvements to the Town of $170,000; 7. Developer paidy all charges for gas, electricity, telephone and other communication services, and all other utilities (water, sewer, etc.) levied or charged against the Property; 8. Developer was solely responsible for all payments, other obligations or liabilities regarding the property throughout the term of the lease; 9. Accepted the property "as is" with no warranty against environmental conditions; Successes: 1. Eliminated the financial risk to the Town, through the use of private funding sources. 2. Knowledge of the market and construction techniques gave developers an advantage in achieving project goals in a timely manner; 3. Gained 112 new rental units, which were being fully pre -leased as they are ready to come on-line; 4. Gained 79 new, higher quality deed restricted year-round rental units; 5. Gained 33 new market rate rental units available to TOV residents; 6. Land reverts to TOV at end of land lease unless buy-out option executed; Town of Vail Page 7 1/19/2016 Option 4 Option 1 Private Development ToV Funding Funding Alone Option 3 Joint Venture Option 2 Government Funding There is a correlation between time and the value of money. As the old adage goes, time is money. The longer it takes to initiate a development the higher the prices go, due to inflation, interest earned or lost, carrying cost and the time value of money. Comparing the development options along a time continuum shows a difference in the amount of time to initiate a development, which the longer it takes to implement the more the project will cost, ergo the increase in financial risk. As shown below Option 4 Private Funding and Option 1 Town Funding Alone take the least amount of time to implement and therefore represent the least risk. The private funding option would take slightly less time because there is basically less decisions to be made by the Town. The Joint Venture Option would take longer to iron out the agreements among the partners and the more partners there are, the more time it would take. The Government Funding Option has the longest lead time, due to application processes and not being able to proceed until funding is secured and therefore has the most risk in relation to time. III. Vail Local Housing Authority History and Details (see attached memo) Town of Vail 1/19/2016 I ffliln Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Vail Town Council Vail Local Housing Authority January 19, 2016 Vail Local Housing Authority History and Details INTRODUCTION On January 15, 1991, the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, establishing the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) "in accordance with The Housing Authority's Law of the State of Colorado." The Town Council determined and declared: "There is a lack of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations in the Town of Vail, available for all inhabitants thereof, and... There is a need for a Housing Authority to function in the Town of Vail..." "...The aforesaid conditions of the Town of Vail compel persons of low income to occupy unsafe or unsanitary dwelling accommodations or overcrowded and congested dwelling accommodations, and that these conditions cause an increase in the spread of disease and crime; that the clearance and reconstruction of areas in which unsanitary or unsafe housing conditions exist and providing of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations at rents which persons of low income can afford are public uses and purposes." WHO Following approval of Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, five Vail residents or persons employed by a Vail business were appointed by the Town Council to serve as commissioners of the VLHA. All five members were appointed for staggered terms so that one term expires each year. Each year the Town Council appoints one new member to serve as commissioner for a five-year term. The original members of the VLHA were Jerry Oliver, Peggy Osterfoss, Duane Piper, Mark Ristow and Jen Wright. 1/19/2016 Per Colorado Revised Statutes 29-4-205, the VLHA may exist entirely of the members of the Vail Town Council ex officio and their appointment to the VLHA shall be coterminous with their term in office, or, as currently exists in Vail, VLHA members are Vail residents or persons employed by a Vail business appointed by the Town Council and only one member may be a sitting member of the Vail Town Council. That Town Council member's term on the VLHA shall not be coterminous with their term on Town Council. Currently the five members of the VLHA are Scott Ashburn, Craig Cohn, Steve Lindstrom, Mary McDougall and James Wilkins. From time to time there has been a member of the Vail Town Council that has also served on the VLHA. The VLHA is a statutory authority created under Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 29-4- 204). As such, the VLHA has the following Powers of authority (CRS 29-4-209): 1) An authority shall constitute a body both corporate and politic, exercising public powers and having all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this part 2, including the following powers in addition to others granted in this section: (a) To investigate living, dwelling, and housing conditions and the means and methods of improving such conditions; (b) To determine where unsafe, unsanitary, or substandard dwelling or housing conditions exist; (c) To study and make recommendations concerning the city plan in relation to the problem of clearing, replanning, and reconstruction of areas in which unsafe, unsanitary, or substandard dwelling or housing conditions exist, and the providing of dwelling accommodations for persons of low income, and to cooperate with any city or regional planning agency; (d) To prepare, carry out, and operate projects and to provide for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, alteration, or repair of any project or any part thereof; (d.3) To grant or lend moneys or otherwise provide financing to any person, firm, corporation, the city, or a government for any project or any part thereof; (d.5) To pledge or otherwise encumber any of its moneys in support of or in connection with a project; (d.7) To establish entities controlled by the authority that may own, operate, act, invest in as a partner or other participant, or take any and all steps necessary or convenient to undertake or otherwise develop a project; Town of Vail Page 2 1/19/2016 (e) To take over by purchase, lease, or otherwise any project undertaken by any government or by the city; (f) To manage as agent of the city any project constructed or owned by the city; (g) To act as agent for the federal government in connection with the acquisition, construction, operation, or management of a project or any part thereof; (h) To arrange with the city or with a government for the furnishing, planning, replanning, opening, or closing of streets, roads, roadways, alleys, or other places or facilities for the acquisition by the city or a government of property, options, or property rights, or for the furnishing of property or services in connection with a project; (i) To lease or rent any of the dwellings or other accommodations, or any of the lands, buildings, structures, or facilities embraced in any project, and to establish and revise the rents or charges therefor; Q) To enter upon any buildings or property in order to conduct investigations or to make surveys or soundings; (k) To purchase, lease, obtain options upon, or acquire by eminent domain, gift, grant, bequest, devise, or otherwise any property, real or personal, or any interest therein from any person, firm, corporation, the city, or a government; (1) To sell, exchange, transfer, assign, or pledge any property, real or personal, or any interest therein to any person, firm, corporation, the city, or a government; (m) To own, hold, clear, and improve property and to insure or provide for the insurance of the property or operations of the authority against such risks as the authority may deem advisable; (n) To procure assurance from a government of the payment of any debts or parts thereof secured by mortgages made or held by the authority on any property included in any project; (o) To borrow money upon its bonds, notes, debentures, or other evidences of indebtedness, and to secure the same by pledges of its revenues and, subject to the limitations imposed by this part 2, by mortgages upon property held or to be held by it, or in any other manner: (1) In connection with any loan, to agree to limitations upon its right to dispose of any project or part thereof, or to undertake additional projects; (11) In connection with any loan by a government, to agree to limitations upon the exercise of any powers conferred upon the authority by this part 2; (p) To invest any moneys held in reserve or sinking funds or any moneys not required Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 for immediate disbursement in property or in securities meeting the investment requirements established in part 6 of article 75 of title 24, C.R.S., or to deposit the same or any part thereof in any depository authorized in section 24-75-603, C.R.S. For the purpose of making such deposits as provided in this paragraph (p), the commissioners may appoint, by written resolution, one or more persons to act as custodians of the moneys of the authority. Such persons shall give surety bonds in such amounts and form and for such purposes as the authority requires. (q) To sue and be sued; (r) To have a seal and to alter the same at pleasure; (s) To have perpetual succession; (t) To make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers of the authority; (u) To make and from time to time amend and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations not inconsistent with this part 2, to carry into effect the powers and purposes of the authority; (v) To conduct examinations and investigations and to hear testimony and take proof under oath at public or private hearings on any matter material for its information; (w) To issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses or the production of books and papers and to issue commissions for the examination of witnesses who are out of the state, unable to attend before the authority, or excused from attendance; (x) To make available to such agencies, boards, or commissions as are charged with the duty of abating nuisances or demolishing unsafe structures within its territorial limits its findings and recommendations with regard to any building or property where conditions exist which are dangerous to the public health, morals, safety, or welfare; and (y) To do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers given in this part 2. (2) Any of the investigations or examinations provided for in this part 2 may be conducted by the authority or by a committee appointed by it, consisting of one or more commissioners, or by counsel, or by an officer or employee specially authorized by the authority to conduct it. Any commissioner, counsel for the authority, or any person designated by it to conduct an investigation or examination has the power to administer oaths, take affidavits, and issue subpoenas or commissions. An authority may exercise any of the powers conferred upon it by this section, either generally or with respect to any specific project through or by any agent which it may designate, including any corporation formed under the laws of this state, and, for such purposes, an authority may cause one or more corporations to be formed under the laws of this state or may acquire the capital stock of any corporation. Any corporate agent, all of the stock of Town of Vail Page 4 1/19/2016 which is owned by the authority or its nominee, to the extent permitted by law, may exercise any of the powers conferred upon the authority. (3) In addition to all of the other powers conferred upon it by this section, an authority may do all things necessary and convenient to carry out the powers expressly given in this part 2. No provisions with respect to the acquisition, operation, or disposition of property by public bodies shall be applicable to an authority unless the legislature specifically so states. IV. WHEN AND HOW The VLHA met regularly during 1991 and 1992. They stopped meeting for lack of action items and the member's terms lapsed. In 2001, the Vail Town Council reinvigorated the VLHA and appointed five new members. A. Middle Creek Village Apartments and the Children's Garden of Learning In May 2001, the Vail Town Council, sitting ex officio as the VLHA, issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for development of affordable rental housing at Middle Creek. The Town Council appointed five new commissioners on June 5, 2001, to act as the Town's special agent to choose a developer to complete the development of affordable rental housing at Middle Creek. B. Arosa Duplex The Vail Town Council issued a RFP for the development of the Arosa Duplex in May 2009. Following the issuance of the RFP the Housing Authority was appointed special agent to select a developer to complete the construction of an affordable duplex that would be price appreciation capped and sold to local employees. C. Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Deed Restriction Exchange Program The VLHA reviews and makes a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on each EHU exchange that is proposed. To date there have been 16 exchanges completed, resulting in the conversion 9,128 of former deed restricted square feet into 13,438 square feet of new deed restricted employee housing and $1,241,896.45 in fees in lieu. D. 2008 Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan and Proposed 2012 Update Throughout 2008, the VLHA met with the Vail Town Council, Vail's Planning and Environmental Commission, Vail Economic Advisory Council and local employers to refine the goal, purpose and actions of the Town of Vail Employees Housing Strategic Plan that was adopted by the Vail Town Council September 2008. In 2012, the VLHA proposed an update to the Town's Employee Housing Strategic Plan. Despite the economic downturn, the VLHA believed the need to maintain deed Town of Vail Page 5 1/19/2016 restricted housing for at least 30% of Vail's workforce in the Town of Vail essential for continued long-term success as a resort community. E. Timber Ridge Redevelopment Advisory Committee Served as an advisory board to the Town Manager reviewing responses to the Town's 2009 Request for Proposals to redevelop one-half of Timber Ridge with affordable rental housing. F. Economic Value of the Town of Vail's Investment in Employee Housing In 2012, the VLHA engaged BBC Research and Consulting to document the current inventory and use of employee housing in Vail and calculate the cost and benefits of the investment from multiple community perspectives. The report concluded: "From a Vail community perspective the quantifiable economic value of employee housing lies in three areas: the costs avoided by businesses of having to induce workers from considerable distance; the additional town retail spending by employee -local residents; and the public costs avoided in not having to find a local parking solution for additional commuting workers. " It went on further to state, "There are additional, non -economic benefits associated with employees being housed within Vail, ranging from lessened seasonality to the invigoration of the community's public life. " The value of this report and quantifying the benefits of investing in employee housing in Vail helped a previous Town Council invest to maintain the deed restricted employee housing beds at Timber Ridge and the now redeveloped Lion's Ridge Apartments. G. Recommendations to the Vail Town Council on the Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) Action Steps In September 2015, the VLHA reviewed the EHSP Action Steps and reported to Town Council on the status of those that had been implemented, those that were on-going and placed the remaining Action Steps to be implemented in priority order. The VLHA also presented Town Council with recommendations to help accomplish the EHSP Goals. They recommended the Vail Town Council: • Appoint a Town Council member to serve as liaison to the VLHA; • Provide direction on what type of housing the VLHA should focus on; • Direct staff to pursue financing options for projects; • Foster a climate of regional cooperation in Eagle County; and • Engage consultants to review zoning regulations and recommend changes to increase the number of privately created EHUs in Vail. Town of Vail Page 6 1/19/2016 H. Engaged a Local Planning Consultant to Review Zoning Regulations and Make Recommendations to Increase Private Development of EHUs in Vail In December 2015, the VLHA engaged Mauriello Planning Group to assist with the review of zoning and development regulations to find ways to entice private sector development of housing. The VLHA also began outreach to the business and development sectors to gather their input in the process with round table discussions and other one on one meetings. Town of Vail Page 7 1/19/2016 TOWN OF VAIN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: 1-70 Vail Underpass Update PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No Action Required BACKGROUND: The 1-70 Vail Underpass project is now under contract between CDOT and Kraemer North America with an anticipated start date for major construction of April 4, 2016. Additional public outreach and a Public Open House is anticipated in March. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No action required. ATTACHMENTS: Memo 1/19/2016 rowN OF vain Memorandum To: Town Council From: Public Works Department Date: 01-19-16 Subject: 1-70 Vail Underpass Construction Update I. SUMMARY The 1-70 Vail Underpass is a proposed new multimodal pedestrian and vehicular connection that is midway between the Vail Town Center and West Vail exits, passing under 1-70. Major construction is scheduled to start April 4, 2016 and be complete by December 2017. In order to be prepared for a project start in April, cross-over detours were constructed in October of 2015 by Kraemer North America (Kraemer NA). Kraemer NA has also been recently awarded the construction contract for the complete Underpass project by CDOT. Additional public outreach along with a public open house will be scheduled in March to provide the opportunity for residents and guests to learn more about the project, to better understand the construction schedule and impacts, to meet the project team, and to ask questions. Project information is currently available at www.vailgov.com/underpass II. CONSTRUCTION TEAM The 1-70 Vail Underpass project is funded by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Town of Vail. The project design team includes CDOT, the Town of Vail, Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (FHU), and Kraemer NA. Kraemer NA is a heavy construction general contractor with many large successful projects within Colorado, most recently and notably they completed the construction of the Veteran's Memorial Tunnel (Twin Tunnels) along 1-70 near Idaho Springs. Kraemer NA will be the general contractor for the construction of the 1-70 Underpass which will start major construction April 4, 2016. Leading the construction effort of the 1-70 Vail Underpass project will be; Matt Figgs; Project Manager for CDOT who has been a part of the 1-70 Vail Underpass design team for the past two years, and whom has most recently managed the construction of the 1-70 Eagle Interchange project. Matt Hogan; Project Manger for Kraemer NA who also has been a part of the 1-70 Vail Underpass team for the past year and a half, and whom has most recently managed the Veteran's Memorial Tunnel project. 1/19/2016 Sam Stavish; Project Manager for Communication Infrastructure Group (CIG), CIG is a full-service public relations firm hired on as a part of the Kraemer NA Team. Sam will work with both the Public Information Officers for CDOT and the Town of Vail to convey the necessary public information to the public during construction. III. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Once major construction begins this spring, there are expected to be four major phases of work for the project. These phases are outlined below. It is important to note that this phased schedule is tentative and subject to change. A final schedule will be presented in March at the Project's public open house. Tentative Project Schedule Phase I (April - June 2016) The first phase of construction includes construction of the two new bridges for the underpass and requires traffic on 1-70 to utilize the cross-over detours that were constructed this past fall, and for 1-70 to be reduced to single lane traffic in each direction at the project site between April 4 and June 30, 2016. Once this phase is complete, 1-70 traffic should return to normal for the remainder of the project. It will be critical to get an early start on this work in order to avoid the heaviest summer traffic months of July and August. Local residents and guests can avoid 1-70 congestion during this time frame by utilizing the North and South Frontage Roads as traffic flow on the Frontage Roads will not be impacted during this initial phase. Phase II (July -November 2016) The second phase of construction includes lowering the South and North Frontage Roads. This phase will require excavating over 60,000 cubic yards of material and setting the Frontage Roads to their new elevations. This work will require the closing of the Frontage Roads at the work location and detouring Frontage Road traffic on to and adjacent to 1-70. In this phase 1-70 will remain as two lanes in each direction, as well as have one lane of Frontage Road traffic separated by concrete barrier. The North Frontage Road will be limited to west bound traffic only within the limits of construction and the South Frontage Road will be limited to east bound traffic only within the limits of construction during this phase. Local residents and guests can utilize the Frontage Roads as normal except at the project site where the North Frontage Road will be westbound traffic only and the South Frontage Road will be eastbound traffic only; 1-70 can also be used as an alternate between Vail Town Center and West Vail. Phase III (December 2016 — March 2017) At the end of the second phase of construction, the Frontage Roads and 1-70 will return to normal traffic patterns. The third phase of construction will consist of minimally impactful work to traffic. On viable winter days the contractor will be excavating beneath the new 1-70 bridges to create the opening for the underpass. This work will be contained within and under 1-70 other than trucks entering and exiting the site onto the Frontage Roads. Town of Vail Page 2 1/19/2016 IV. Phase IV (April — December 2017) The fourth and final phase of construction will be constructing the roundabouts, installing curb and gutter, sidewalk, permanent pavement, landscaping, stone veneer, lighting, and striping. The traffic patterns in order to complete this work will be identical to that in Phase II. PULIC INFORMATION Public Information will be led by CIG in cooperation with the CDOT and the Town of Vail. Press releases, e-mail blasts, project website updates, traffic signage, public meetings and a phone hotline will all be used during this construction process. In an effort to provide one message and the most thorough responses to public inquiries, we would ask that the public funnel all of their questions and comments through the project hotline, and the project website. This will be the most efficient way to track and address all concerns and comments once the project starts. Vail staff will be intimately involved in the project, and will be available to answer questions; however CDOT best practices and contractual protocols have found that public information is best handled via the communications portal that has been set up for the project. More detailed information regarding public information will be provided at the public open house in March. Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 TOWN OF VAIN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Traffic Impact Fee & Transportation Master Plan Update PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study, discuss codifying a new Traffic Impact Fee, award Transportation Master Plan Update contract to FHU as a next step. BACKGROUND: The last time the town's traffic impact fee was updated was in 2006. Since then much has changed in Vail with regards to construction costs and anticipated future transportation infrastructure needs. Considering this and the resurgence in redevelopment, it is prudent to reassess and update the impact fee and the correlating 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue to move forward with codifying a Traffic Impact Fee by awarding a contract to FHU to update the Vail Transportation Master Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Memo Presentation 2009 excerpt 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Study 1/19/2016 I(IM VAIL � Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Town Council Public Works Department 1-19-16 Traffic Impact Fee & Transportation Master Plan Update SUMMARY A traffic impact fee is a development fee assessed to offset the costs that the town may incur to improve transportation infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from proposed new developments. The last time the town's traffic impact fee was increased was in 2006. In that 10 years much has changed in Vail with regards to construction costs and anticipated future transportation infrastructure needs. Considering this and the resurgence in redevelopment, it is prudent to reassess and update the impact fee and the correlating 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail has collected Traffic Impact Fees for certain development zone districts since 1999. The Traffic Impact Fee is not a codified amount, but an additional fee agreed upon by the Town and the Developer for mitigation of vehicular trip impacts of a proposed development project. In 1999, the fee was agreed upon to be $5000 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip added to Vail's road network. The fee was based on the improvements anticipated by; the Vail Transportation Master Plan, the total anticipated additional vehicular trips at that time, and the probable funding sources, being Town of Vail capital funds, CDOT partnering funds, and development Impact fees. Since that time, the fee was increased to $6500 in 2006 as a direct result of construction inflation. In 2009 the Town adopted an updated Vail Transportation Master Plan, which included a more detailed and updated estimate of future projected transportation projects and costs. At that same time the Town engaged Tischler Bise to develop a nexus study for Traffic Impact Fees that was anticipated to be used to codify a Traffic Impact Fee. The nexus study was completed in 2009, but the Traffic Impact Fee was not adopted or codified by Town Council. The then Town Council did not deem it appropriate to burden developers with additional fees at that time. The nexus study proposed to codify a traffic impact fee based on proposed square footage of all development, not limiting it only to certain zone districts; this would include residential projects, and is typical of nationwide traffic impact fees. The nexus study identified $134 Million of potential transportation related projects (Traffic, Transit, and Parking), of which $22 Million was 1/19/2016 identified to be funded from the proposed Traffic Impact Fee for traffic related projects. The 2009 proposed traffic impact fee schedule was as follows; See Figure 7 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential (per housinz unit) Minimum Sq Ft Maximum Sq Ft Attached in Core Area all sizes $4,038 Attached Outside Core all sizes $5,048 Detached 0 2,099 $5,890 Detached 2,100 2,299 $6,563 Detached 3,100 3,299 $9,424 Detached 4,100 4,299 $11,443 Detached 5,100 5,299 $13,126 Detached 6,100 6,299 $14,304 Detached 6,300 or more $14,641 Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area $4,038 Hotel Outside Core $5,048 Nonresidential (per square foot offloor area) Commercial in Core Area $9.42 Commercial Outside Core $20.36 Office $4.20 Other Services $6.73 1/19/2016 TischlerBise When equated to net PM vehicle trips the fee would have been equivalent to $8400 per net new anticipated vehicular trips. However, since the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee was not codified the town has continued to rely on developer improvement agreements and an agreed upon mitigation fee with each developer. The last large development impact fee agreed upon was for The Lion (Lionshead Inn) and the Marriott Residence Inn (The Roost) developments in 2010, which used the 2006 fee of $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip. Since 2006, when the mitigation fee was updated to $6500, much has changed with regards to construction costs, the 2009 Tischler Bise Impact Fee study, the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, and the funding of the Underpass project. If we apply the nexus study's rationale and project costs; then adjust for completed projects, updated traffic projections, and construction cost inflation, the current suggested traffic impact fee per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip may equate to as much as —$11,000. However in order to confirm and codify this, an updated Transportation Master Plan and Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study will need to be completed. The nexus study will again also recommend that a proposed impact fee should be based on square Town of Vail Page 2 TischlerBise When equated to net PM vehicle trips the fee would have been equivalent to $8400 per net new anticipated vehicular trips. However, since the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee was not codified the town has continued to rely on developer improvement agreements and an agreed upon mitigation fee with each developer. The last large development impact fee agreed upon was for The Lion (Lionshead Inn) and the Marriott Residence Inn (The Roost) developments in 2010, which used the 2006 fee of $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip. Since 2006, when the mitigation fee was updated to $6500, much has changed with regards to construction costs, the 2009 Tischler Bise Impact Fee study, the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, and the funding of the Underpass project. If we apply the nexus study's rationale and project costs; then adjust for completed projects, updated traffic projections, and construction cost inflation, the current suggested traffic impact fee per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip may equate to as much as —$11,000. However in order to confirm and codify this, an updated Transportation Master Plan and Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study will need to be completed. The nexus study will again also recommend that a proposed impact fee should be based on square Town of Vail Page 2 footage of development rather than net PM peak hour trips, and needs to be assessed equally amongst all development zone districts in order to comply with Colorado's impact fee enabling legislation. The 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study has been attached for additional information. III. NEXT STEPS With the resurgence in redevelopment, and the outdated traffic impact fee, it is prudent to reassess and update the 2009 Tischler Bise Impact Fee Nexus study and the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. This will also coincide with the recent Vail Valley Medical Center redevelopment plan and Developer Agreement, which sets the traffic mitigation fee for VVMC at $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicle trip (based on the 2006 fee) unless the Town adopts a new Traffic Impact Fee by Fall 2017. The first step in updating the Traffic Impact Fee would be to update the 2009 Transportation Master Plan. Town staff has received a proposal to update our Transportation Master Plan from Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (FHU). FHU has been involved with Vail's traffic master plan efforts since 1990 and completed the original Master Plan in 1993, and the 2002 and 2009 updates, as well as completed the design and traffic analysis for the anticipated 1-70 Underpass project. Upon completion of the Transportation Master Plan update, the updated document can then be used by Tischler Bise to update the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study. The Town has budgeted $150,000 to complete both studies. FHU has provided a proposal in the amount of $47,000 to complete the Transportation Master Plan update, the first necessary step in the process. Staff has also reached out to Tischler Bise recently to provide an estimate for completing an updated Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study, the estimate provided was $50k -$60k. Both well within the 2016 total budget. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to begin the first step of this process, town staff recommends that Council direct the Town Manager to enter into a contract with FHU to update the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan in the amount of $47,000 in a contract form approved by the Town attorney. Regardless of the final outcome of the Traffic Impact Fee, codified or not, an update to the Vail Transportation Master Plan is recommended especially in light of the anticipated 1-70 Under pass project and how that will enhance transportation throughout town. Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 TischlerBise • National practice • Specialize in impact fees (over 600) • Comprehensive fiscal evaluations (over 500) • Infrastructure needs • Revenue strategies • Utility rate studies • Public and private sector experience v • Dwayne Pierce Guthrie, Ph.D., AICP - Doctorate in Planning, Governance, and Globalization from Virginia Tech (2007) - Member, American Institute of Certified Planners - 30 years of planning experience - Impact fee studies for approximately 120 jurisdictions in 25 states 1/19/2016 TischlerBise Why Impact Fees? • Minimizes externalities like traffic congestion • Provides amarket-oriented solution that achieves a more efficient production level - Creates a connection between private sector development and the demand for public facilities - Decreases infrastructure subsidies from broad- based revenues • Adequate infrastructure alleviates NIMBY and BANANA concerns Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody Tischler 1/19/2016 Impact Fee Ground Rules • Comply with requirements of applicable court decisions and State enabling legislation • Not a revenue raising mechanism but a way to help pay for growth -related infrastructure (need) • Fee payers must receive a benefit - Accounting and expenditure controls - Timing of improvements - Geographic service areas • One-time fee covers new development's proportionate share of capital costs for system improvements Tischler 1/19/2016 Colorado Impact Fee Act • Fee schedules must be legislatively adopted and generally applicable to a broad class of property • Local government shall quantify the reasonable impacts of proposed development on capital facilities • A capital facility must have a useful life of five years or longer 1/19/2016 Tischler Vail's Current Mitigation Fee • 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF CURRENTFEE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure... Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) Substantial off site impacts may include: • Roadway improvements • Pedestrian walkway improvements • Streetscape improvements • Loading/delivery... STRUCTURE $6500 per Net PM Peak Hour vehicular trip end (entering and exiting) 1/19/2016 Tischler Road Impact Fee Comparison See Figure 2 Per Housing Unit Per 1, 000 Sq Ft Jingle hamily Multifamily Retail Ujpce National Average $3,077 $2,096 $5,327 $3,381 Incorporated Areas in Durango $2,169 Ft. Collins $2,792 Vail current* so Proposed in Core Area of Vail $5,890 Proposed Outside Core Area $51890 Colorado $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 $1,804 $8,534 $3,067 $2,366 $10,569 $9,685 $4,038 $9,420 $4,200 $5,048 $20,360 $4,200 Counties in Colorado Adams Co. $1,599 Eagle Co. $1,600 Jefferson Co. $2,591 Larimer Co. $2,913 Mesa Co. $1,589 Pitkin current $5,664 Pitkin proposed $6,520 Weld Co. 1 $1,987 $983 $2,131 $1,178 $1,109 $4,923 $1,887 $2,155 $5,630 $3,790 $2,044 $5,870 $2,408 $1,100 $2,448 $1,665 $3,505 $10,064 $3,921 $4,760 $10,150 $3,770 $1,377 $1,024 $2,430 Source: Data for all locations except Vail and Pitkin County from National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2008). Single Family assumes 2,000 square feet or three bedrooms. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100,000 square feet offloor area. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PMPeak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. Town staffprovided the average mitigation fees currently collected. 1/19/2016 See Figure 7 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential (per housin unit) Attached in Core Area Attached Outside Core Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area Hotel Outside Core Minimum Sq Ft Maximum Sq Ft all sizes all sizes 0 2,099 2,100 21299 3,100 3,299 4,100 4,299 5,100 51299 6,100 61299 F- 6,300 or more Nonresidential (per syuaresfoot oLfloor area) Commercial in Core Area Commercial Outside Core Office Other Services $4,038 $5,048 $5,890 $6,563 $9,424 $11,443 $13,126 $14,304 $14,641 $4,038 $5,048 $9.42 $20.36 $4.20 $6.73 1/19/2016 Tischfer i e Transportation Impact Fee Study August 25, 2009 Prepared By TischlerBise Fiscal, Economic & Planning Cconsultant5 1/19/2016 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE COLORADO IMPACT FEE ACT................................................................................................1 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL...................................................................................................2 Figure 1— Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area......................................................................................3 LOWERFEES IN CORE AREA....................................................................................................................................4 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES................................................................................................4 Figure 2 — Road Impact Fee Comparison.............................................................................................................5 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES....................................................................................................................6 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula.........................................................................................................6 TRIPGENERATION....................................................................................................................................................7 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail..............................................................................................8 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand..............................................................................................8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................9 Figure 5 — Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share.......................................................10 CREDIT FOR OTHER REVENUES..............................................................................................................................10 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES.....................................................................11 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables.....................................................................................12 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES.................................................................................13 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule................................................................................................13 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS...............................................................14 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection........................................................................................................14 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION............................................................................................15 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS...........................................................................................................................15 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES.................................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA..........................................................................................................17 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BY TYPE OF HOUSING........................................................................................................17 Figure A1— Persons per Household..................................................................................................................17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING.............................................................................................18 Figure A2 - Residential Trip Generation Rates by Type of Housing.................................................................18 Figure A3 — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House............................................19 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF DETACHED HOUSING.............................................................................20 Figure A4 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet..............................................................................21 1/19/2016 ■ Tisc Ise Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants 4701 SANGAMORE ROAD I SUITE 5240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816 T. 800.424.4318 1 F: 301.320.4860 43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE I SUITE 204W I TEMECULA, CA 92590 T: 951.719.8478 I F: 301.320.4860 WW W.TISCHLERBISE.COM INTRODUCTION For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine the basic rules of the game established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, "home -rule" states grant localities all powers that are not precluded or preempted by the state constitution or statutes. Local governments in Colorado have home rule power and the State adopted impact fee enabling legislation in 2001. Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth -related capital projects, typically called "system improvements." In contrast to project -level improvements, impact fees fund growth -related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable and direct relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. A second step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to consider the rational nexus and proportionality tests established by court cases. Project - level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to roads adjacent to a proposed development and primarily address access management. Because system improvements (funded with impact fees) are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. Highlights of the Colorado Impact Fee Act The Town of Vail may impose development impact fees under the provisions of Sections 29-20-102 through 204 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which became effective in 2001. In Colorado, the impact fee schedule must be legislatively adopted and generally applicable to a broad class of property for the purpose of defraying capital costs directly related to proposed development. Other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fee studies and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not the case in Colorado. Fiscal Impact Analysis - Impact Fees • Utility Rate Studies - Infrastructure Financing • User Fees • Cost Allocation Plans - Fiscal Software 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado To be funded by impact fees, capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. TischlerBise recommends that impact fee calculations should be in current dollars (not inflated over time), with the costs periodically updated as part of the regular budgetary process. Development Pattern in the Town of Vail Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi -modal transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi -modal transportation improvements necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail. 2 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Figure 1- Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area Vail, Colorado Tischlefte Fiscal, E--rn I[ & Planning Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Lower Fees in Core Area Vail, Colorado Development of attached housing units, hotels, and commercial buildings (e.g. restaurants and retail shops) in the core area will facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area. Current and Proposed Transportation Fees Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation -related mitigation fees (see Vail code section in the footnote'). This requirement is specific to certain zone districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process. Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a single family house assumes construction of a three bedroom unit or approximately 2,000 square feet of heated floor area. Fee amounts for nonresidential development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. ' 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 4 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Figure 2 - Road Impact Fee Comparison Per Housiniz Unit Per 1, 000 Sa Ft Vail, Colorado Source: Data for all locations except Vail and Pitkin County from National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2008). Single Family assumes 2,009 square feet or three bedrooms. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 109,009 square feet of floor area. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. Town staffprovided the average mitigation fees currently collected. 5 TischlerBise Fixal,-rni,&PP-ing Consultants 1/19/2016 Single Pamily Multifamily Retail (Nice National Average 1$3,077 1 $2,0961 $5,3271 $3,381 Incorporated Areas in Colorado Durango $2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 Ft. Collins $2,792 1 $1,8041 $8,534 $3,067 Vail current Proposed in Core Area of Vail 1 $5,890 1 $4,038 1 $9,420 $4,200 Proposed Outside Core Area 1$5,890 1 $5,048 1 $20,360 $4,200 Counties in Colorado Adams Co. $1,599 $983 $2,131 $1,178 Eagle Co. $1,600 $1,109 $4,923 $1,887 Jefferson Co. $2,591 $2,155 $5,630 $3,790 IarimerCo. $2,913 $2,044 $5,870 $2,408 Mesa Co. $1,589 $1,100 $2,448 $1,665 Pitkin current $5,664 $3,505 $10,064 $3,921 Pitkinproposed $6,520 $4,760 $10,150$3,770 Weld Co. $1,987 $1,377 $1,024 $2,430 Source: Data for all locations except Vail and Pitkin County from National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2008). Single Family assumes 2,009 square feet or three bedrooms. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 109,009 square feet of floor area. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. Town staffprovided the average mitigation fees currently collected. 5 TischlerBise Fixal,-rni,&PP-ing Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Vail, Colorado Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of -Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi -modal transportation improvements were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right side of the equation below). The cost of growth -related transportation improvements was allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips. Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula Demand Infrastructure Dollars Units Units per per per Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The 6 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon, peak -hour trips, with estimated travel assigned to specific routes. The need for transportation improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth -related system improvements is paid by new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass-through trips (i.e. external -external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal-external travel). One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers' that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice, future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at one time that can be handled by the Town's infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the agreement titled "Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods." Therefore, if the maximum skiers at one time agreement is increased, or if lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. 7 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail Vail, Colorado The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in development and afternoon, peak -hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail's Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, maintained by Town staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in development is expected to occur by the year 2025. A faster pace of development would accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements. Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of capital improvements. Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand Development Additional Inbound Additional Type Development Trip Rate per Inbound Units (2) Development Trips Unit 3 Attached Housing Units in Core Area 1,275 0.24 306 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 878 0.30 263 Detached Housing Units 247 0.64 158 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 598 0.24 144 Hotel Roans Outside Core 212 0.30 64 Commercial KSF in Core Area (1) 389 0.56 218 Commercial KSF Outside Core (1) 83 1.21 100 Office KSF (1) 54 0.25 14 Other Services KSF (1) 160 0.40 64 TOTAL (1) KSF= square feet offloor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan OWU2009) and Town staff (08/09). (3) Trip generation rates arefrom Appendix E Vail Transportation Master Plan except detached housing and commercial outside core area. These are derived from ITE formulas and data. 1,331 TischlerBise Fis-I Komori,&PI'a in&Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5. Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail (Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig 2009). Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrians improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2025 is estimated to be approximately $134 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Approximately 48% of the total transportation infrastructure cost is for structured parking, a transit center, and additional buses, but impact fees will not fund these improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), the Town of Vail General Fund, and development agreements, will cover approximately $111.6 million of the total cost. The growth share of improvements to be funded by impact fees is $22.4 million (-17% of the total). E TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Figure 5 — Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share TOTAL $134,000,000 $111,600,000 $22,400,000 Net Increase in PMPeak Attraction Trips (inbound) 1,331 Cost per Additional PM Peak Trip (inbound) $16,829 (I) Costandfunding data from Fail Public Works. (2) Other funding includes Town of Vail Capital Budget, REIT, TIFF, development required improvements, and CDOT. Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived using a plan -based method. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. 10 TischlerBise Fis-I .—i, & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Total Other Funding Growth Share Type Description cast (I) (2) Funded by Impact Fees Parking and Transit Parking structures, transit center, $64,000,000 $64,000,000 $0 and additional buses Roads in Sec I N Frontage - Arosa to WV $800,000 $800,000 $0 Roundabout Roads in Sec II N Frontage - WV Roundabout to $4,300,000 $4,300,000 $0 Zermatt Ln NFrontage - Zematt Ln to Simba Roads in Sec III $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $0 Run Roads in Sec IV Simba Run Underpass $19,500,000 $4,500,000 $15,000,000 S Frontage - DJ Path to WV Roads in Sec V Roundabout $5,300,000 $5,300,000 $0 Roads in Sec VI S Frontage - WV Roundabout to $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $0 Simba Roads in Sec VII S Frontage - Simba to Strata $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $0 N Frontage - Simba run to MV Roads in Sec VIII Roundabout $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $0 Roads in Sec IX Main Vail Roundabout $3,600,000 $1,000,000 $2,600,000 S Frontage - Strata to East LH Roads in Sec X Circle $2,900,000 $500,000 $2,400,000 Roads Sec XI S Frontage - E LH Circle to MV $8,300,000 $6,300,000 $2,000,000 Roundabout Roads Sec XII S Frontage - MV Roundabout to $2,800,000 $2,400,000 $400,000 Vail Valley Dr Roads Sec XIII Prk Frontage - Vail Valley Dr to Ford $2,900,000 $2,900,000 $0 Roads Sec XIV Frontage Rd - Ford Park to E Vail $6,200,000 $6,200,000 $0 TOTAL $134,000,000 $111,600,000 $22,400,000 Net Increase in PMPeak Attraction Trips (inbound) 1,331 Cost per Additional PM Peak Trip (inbound) $16,829 (I) Costandfunding data from Fail Public Works. (2) Other funding includes Town of Vail Capital Budget, REIT, TIFF, development required improvements, and CDOT. Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived using a plan -based method. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. 10 TischlerBise Fis-I .—i, & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. If the Town bond finances a major project, such as the Simba Run underpass, a revenue credit might be necessary if future principal payments are paid from development -related revenue sources. Payments from broad-based revenues, such as sales and resort taxes, would not require a revenue credit. Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived from the growth -related cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements. Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in Figure 5. Other, non- impact fee funds, such as RETT and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements on roads not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue matches the growth -related cost of planned system improvements (approximately $22.4 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for other revenue sources is unnecessary. Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for an attached residential unit in the core area is 0.24 x 16,829 = $4,038 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for attached housing, hotel rooms, and commercial buildings are lower in the core area as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation Master Plan, except for two development types. Inbound trips, by heated floor area of detached housing, is documented in Appendix A. The trip rate for commercial development outside the core area is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).2 2 See Trip Generation (2008), for land use code 820. During the afternoon peak hour, the average shopping center generates 3.73 trip ends, with 49% entering. Also, 34% of trips to the average shopping center are pass -by trips that do not add travel to the adjacent road (see Trip Generation Handbook, ITE 11 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Figure 6 - Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables PM Peak Vehicle Trips -0 . Inbound Residential (per Honing Unit) Minimum I Maxinnim Trips Attached in Core Area all sizes 0.24 Attached Outside Core all sizes 0.30 Detached 0 2,099 0.35 Detached 2,100 2,299 0.39 Detached 2,300 2,499 0.43 Detached 2,500 2,699 0.47 Detached 2,700 2,899 0.50 Detached 2,900 3,099 0.53 Detached 3,100 3,299 0.56 Detached 3,300 3,499 0.59 Detached 3,500 3,699 0.61 Detached 3,700 31899 0.64 Detached 3,900 4,099 0.66 Detached 4,100 4,299 0.68 Detached 4,300 4,499 0.70 Detached 4,500 4,699 0.72 Detached 4,700 4,899 0.74 Detached 4,900 5,099 0.76 Detached 5,100 5,299 0.78 Detached 5,300 5,499 0.79 Detached 5,500 51699 0.81 Detached 5,700 5,899 0.82 Detached 5,900 6,099 0.84 Detached 6,100 6,299 0.85 Detached 6,300 or more 0.87 Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area 0.24 Hotel Outside Core 0.30 Nonresidential (per 1,000 Sq Ft of floor area) Commercial in Core Area 0.56 Comnwrcial Outside Core 1.21 Office 0.25 Other Services 0.4a Infrastructure Stan dards Cost per Trip $16,829 Revenue Credit Per Trip $0 Vail, Colorado 2004). The remaining 66% of the attraction trips are reasonably assigned to the average shopping center. Multiplying these three factors (3.73 x 0.49 x 0.66) yields 1.21 inbound trips during the afternoon peak hour. 12 TischlerBise Fis, al,Economic&PI nning Consoitants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure 7. Fees for most types of nonresidential development are listed per square foot of floor area. At the bottom of the table are some nonresidential development types that have unique demand indicators. For example, the impact fee for lodging is based on the number of rooms. Figure 7 - Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Transportation Impact Fee zntial (per housing unit) Attached in Core Area Attached Outside Core Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Minin rn SqFtj Maximum Sq Ft all sizes all sizes 0 2,099 2,100 2,299 2,300 2,499 2,500 2,699 2,700 2,899 2,900 3,099 3,100 3,299 3,300 3,499 3,500 3,699 3,700 3,899 3,900 4,099 4,100 4,299 4,300 4,499 4,500 4,699 4,700 4,899 4,900 5,099 5,100 5,299 5,300 5,499 5,500 5,699 5,700 5,899 5,900 6,099 6100 6 99 6,300 or more (per room) Hotel in Core Area Hotel Outside Core sidential (per squarefoot offloor area) Commercial in Core Area Commercial Outside Core Office Other Services 13 $4,038 $5,048 $5,890 $6,563 $7,236 $7,909 $8,414 $8,919 $9,424 $9,929 $10,265 $10,770 $11,107 $11,443 $11,780 $12,116 $12,453 $12,790 $13,126 $13,294 $13,631 $13,799 $14,136 $14,304 $14,641 $4,038 $5,048 $9.42 $20.36 $4.20 $6.73 TischlerBise Fis-1, .-i, & PI' -in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. cumulative total of $22.4 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, such as the Simba Run underpass. The percentage of total impact fee revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New housing units in Vail will generate approximately 54.7% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New hotels will generate approximately 15.6%, while other types of nonresidential development will yield approximately 29.7% of projected revenue. Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Additional I Proposed Fee Projected Percentof Type Development PerDevelopinent Revenue Total Units (2) 1 Unit Impact Fees Attached Housing Units in Core Area 1,275 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 878 Commercial KSF in Core Area (1) 389 Detached Housing Units 247 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 598 Commercial KSF Outside Core (1) 83 Other Services KSF (1) 160 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 212 Office KSF (1) 54 TOTAL (1) KSF= square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation MasterPlca OWU2009) and Town staff (08/09). 14 $4,038 1 $5,148,000 1 2 $5,048 1 $4,432,000 $9,420 1 $3,664,000 1 16.4 $10,770 1 $2,660,000 1 11. $4,038 1 $2,415,000 $20,360 1 $1,690,000 1 7 $6,730 1 $1,077,000 $5,048 $1,070,000 $4,200 $227,000 $22,383,000 TischlerBise Fis-1, .—i, & PI'—in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Although the Town of Vail only expects a few detached housing units to be constructed each year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data; 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller units pay less and larger units pay more); and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing. Credits and Reimbursements Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project -level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the area benefiting from the system improvement. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for the Town to establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. In the future, if the Town adds other types of impact fees, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Development Categories The development categories listed in the impact fee schedules will cover a majority of the new construction anticipated within Vail. For unique developments, the Town may allow or require documentation of reasonable demand indicators to facilitate an impact fee determination, consistent with the methodologies and factors documented in this report. 15 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehouses or mini -warehouses. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse or mini -warehouse. The key consideration in administrative decisions is to be reasonable and consistent. If an applicant thinks the administrative decision is not reasonable, it is appealed to the elected officials for their consideration. 16 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size of detached housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January 1St. Impact fees are calibrated using 2009 as the base year and 2010 as the first projection year. Demographic Data by Type of Housing Figure Al provides population and housing characteristics in Vail according to the 2000 census. Vail had 5,389 housing units at the time of the 2000 census. According to the Census Bureau, a household is housing unit occupied by a year-round resident on April 1st (i.e. the census date). Approximately 40% of the housing units in Vail are occupied by year-round residents, with roughly 60% of the housing stock considered to be seasonal units. Detached units include both stick -built and manufactured housing (shown with yellow shading below). Single family attached units, commonly known as townhouses, are considered to be attached housing for the purpose of transportation impact fees (shown with light grey shading below). Figure A1- Persons per Household Year -Round Population by Type of Housing Town of Vail, Colorado Units in Renter & Owner Housing Vacancy Structure Persons Households PPH* Units Rate 1 -Detached 843 361 2.34 648 44.3% Mobile Homes 17 4 4.25 4 0.0% 1 -Attached (Townhouse) 959 401 2.39 973 58.8% T,Au (Duplex) 328 181 1.81 256 29.3% 3 or4 678 334 2.03 664 49.7% 5 to 9 665 323 2.06 867 62.7% 10 to 19 399 229 1.74 797 71.3% 20 to 49 502 276 1.82 811 66.0% 50 or more 1 96 46 2.09 366 87.4% Total SF3 Sample Datal 4,487 2,155 2.081 5,386 60.0°/ SH I 1. ' 5,389 General Hasse Type Demographics Housing Persons Households PPH* Units Hsg Mix Detached 860 365 2.36 652 12% Attached 3,627 1,790 2.03 4,734 88% Group Quarters 13 Sample Difference 31 10 3 TOTAL 4,531 2,165 5,389 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 data * PersonsperHomehold 17 TischlefISf; Fis-I .—i, & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing As an alternative to simply using the average trip generation rate for residential development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes regression curve formulas that may be used to derive custom trip generation rates using local demographic data. Key independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e. vehicles available, housing units, households and persons) are available from the U.S. Census Bureau's website. TischlerBise used Census 2000 data for Vail to derive custom trip generation rates by type of housing, as shown in Figure A2. A vehicle trip end represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development, as if a traffic counter were placed across a driveway. To calculate transportation impact fees, trip generation rates are adjusted to avoid double counting each trip at both the origin and destination points. Therefore, the basic trip adjustment factor is 50% unless traffic studies provide specific data on inbound vs. outbound travel. According to ITE, the national average for detached housing is 66% inbound trips during the afternoon peak hour. The average size detached unit in Vail is expected to attract 0.64 inbound trips (0.97 trip ends multiplied by 66%). Figure A2 - Residential Trip Generation Rates by Type of Housing Vail, Colorado Owner -occupied Renter -occupied TOTAL Detached Housing Attached Housing TOTAL Vehicles Available 1 2,114 1,752 3,866 Households (2) Detached Housing Attached Housing Total 316 820 1,136 49 970 1,019 365 17% 1,790 83% 2,155 Persons Trip (3) Ends (4) Vehicles by Trip Type of Housing Ends (5) 8601 247 6721 458 3,6271 652 3,1941 708 4,487 898 3,866 1,166 Vehicles per Household by Tenure 1.86 1.72 1.79 Average Trip Ends per Tip Ends Household 352 0.97 680 0.38 1,032 0.48 (1) Vehicles available bytenure from Table H46, SF3, Census 2000. (2) Households by tenure and units in structure from table H32, SF3, Census 2000. (3) Persons by units in structure f omtable H33, SF3, Census 2000. (4) Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2008). For detached housing (ITE 210), fitted curve equation is EXP(0.85*LN(persms)-0.34). To fit within the data range of the ITE studies, the number of persons was divided by 2 and the equation result multiplied by 2. For attached housing (ITE 230), fitted curve equation is (0.17*persons)-35.30. (5) Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2008). For detached housing (ITE 210 fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*IN(vehicles)+0.05). To fit within the data range of the ITE studies, the number of vehicles available was divided by 3 and the equation result multiplied by 3. For attached housing (ITE 230), fitted curve equation is (0.21 *vehicles)+36.97. 18 TischlerBise Fis-1, .—i, & PI'—Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range may be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, using files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS data are only available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, Eagle County is grouped together with Grand, Summit, Lake, Pitkin, Gunnison, Ouray, Hinsdale, and Mineral County (i.e. Public Use Microdata Area 00700). As shown in Figure A3, TischlerBise derived trip generation rates for detached housing, by bedroom range, based on the number of persons and vehicles available. According to the County Assessor's parcel database, detached housing in Vail is larger than the normal, with "small" units having three bedrooms, "medium" units having four bedrooms, and "large" units having five or more bedrooms, which is the upper limit for Census Bureau data. The far -right column indicates inbound, afternoon peak hour vehicle trips by bedroom range, assuming 66% of trip ends are inbound (national average for ITE 210). Figure A3 - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Vail, Colorado Bedrooms per Detached Unit Three or less Four Five or more Detached Subtotal Attached Subtotal GRAND TOTAL Persons 1 Trip Ends 2 Vehicles Available 1 Trip Ends 3 Average Dip Ends House- holds 1 Trip Ends per Household 1,323 320 1,222 769 545 589 0.93 479 135 442 302 219 169 1.30 150 50 145 108 79 47 1.68 1,952 505 1,809 1,179 843 805 1.05 817 630 397 2,769 2,439 1,202 Recommended Inbound Trips (4) 0.46 0.64 0.83 (1) American Comininity Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for Colorado PUMA 00700 (unweighted data for 2005-2007). (2) Vehicle trips ends based on persons using fornnilas from Trip Generation (ITE 2008). For detached housing (ITE 210), fitted curve equation is EXP(0.85*LN(persons)+0.34). (3) Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formzlas from Trip Generation (ITE 2008). For detached holusing (ITE 210), fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*1N(vehicles)+0.05). To approximate the average number of -vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles were divided by 2 and the equation result multiplied by 2. (4) Recommended inbound trips bybedroomrange are reduced to make inbound trips for a mid-size detached unit, derived fromACS PUMS data, match the average trip generation rate derived from Census 2000 Summary File 3 data for the Town of Vail. According to ITE, 66% of trip ends are inbound. 19 Ti$chlefise Fis-I .—i, & PI'a in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Vail, Colorado Trip Generation by Floor Area of Detached Housing To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of detached housing, TischlerBise combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and detached house size data from the County Assessor's parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size detached housing unit with three or less bedrooms has 2,441 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four bedroom unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Detached housing units with five or more bedrooms average 5,706 square feet of floor area. Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the three actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average afternoon, peak -hour, inbound trips by size of detached housing unit, in 200 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding garages, etc). Based on the size of detached housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation impact fees for detached housing to the floor area range shown below. In other words, a detached house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee based on 0.35 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, detached units with 6,300 or more square feet of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.87 inbound vehicle trips. 20 TischlerBise Fis-I .—ic & PI'a Mg Consultants 1/19/2016 Transportation Impact Fee Figure A4 - PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet Vail, Colorado Source: Trips by bedroom range Actual Averages from ACSPUMS data Floor area Bedrooms Square Feet Inbound Trips (heated squarefeeo from County Three or less 2,441 0.46 Assessorparcel database.. Four 3,698 0.64 Five or more 1 5,7061 0.83 PMPeak Hour Inbound Vehicle Trips per Housing Unit 1.00- 0.90- 0.80- 0.70- 0.60- 0.50- 0.40- 0.30- .000.900.800.700.600.500.400.30 y=0.43%Lr> x)-2.9394 020 RZ =1 0.10 0.00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Square Feet 21 Vail, Colorado Square Feet Inbound Trips 2,099 or less 0.35 2,100 039 2,300 0.43 2,500 0.47 2,700 0.50 2,900 0.53 3,100 0.56 3,300 0.59 3,500 0.61 3,700 0.64 3,900 0.66 4,100 0.68 4,300 0.70 4,500 0.72 4,700 0.74 4,900 0.76 5,100 0.78 5,300 0.79 5,500 0.81 5,700 0.82 5,900 0.84 6,100 0.85 6,300 or more 0.87 TischlerBise Fis-1, .-i, & PI'. -in& Consultants 1/19/2016 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence, Planner ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, upon first reading. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive , Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District. The boundary amendment will provide a zoning more suitable for the project and allow appropriate redevelopment/expansion consistent with the Medium Density Multiple -Family District. It is anticipated that a Design Review Board (DRB) application for an addition to Unit E, the easternmost unit in the building, will be submitted subsequent to a successful rezoning of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Council approve on first reading Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District ATTACHMENTS: Staff Memorandum Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, First Reading PEC Memorandum, dated December 14, 2015, with attachments December 14, 2015, PEC meeting results 1/19/2016 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 19, 2016 SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150034) Applicant: Garmisch Townhomes, represented by Triumph Development LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Garmisch Townhomes, represented by Triumph Development, LLC, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016 for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple - Family District. II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On December 14, 2015, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended the Vail Town Council approve, Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, upon first reading, with a vote of 3-1-0, (Gillette opposed), with no conditions. Commissioner Gillette's opposition stemmed from a consideration that the Low Density Multiple -Family District (LDMF) might be a more appropriate fit then the Medium Density Multiple -Family District (MDMF). The two districts differ primarily in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) with the MDMF allowing 56% of the buildable site area while the LDMF allows 44% of the buildable site area as the basis for allowable GRFA. This recommendation was based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the December 14, 2015 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented. 1/19/2016 III. ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON The following table compares the development standards of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District and the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District. Development P/S MDMF Standard Standard Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet Lot Size Side: 15 feet Side: 20 feet Complies Rear: 15 Feet Rear: 20 Feet Maximum Height Flat Roof: 30 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Side (North): 21 feet Sloped Roof: 33 feet Sloped Roof 38 feet Maximum Dwelling 2 DU + 1 Type II EHU per site 18 units per acre units Rear: 90+ Feet GRFA 46% for 1S 10,000 sq. ft. 56% of Buildable Site 35 feet 38% for 2nd 5,000 sq. ft. Area 13% for 3rd 15,000 sq. ft. Sloped Roof: 38 feet 6% in excess of 25,000 sq. ft. 5 units Site coverage 20% 45% maximum du/acre) Minimum Landscaping 60% 30% Required Parking Per Sec. 12-10 Per Sec. 12-10 The table below compares the existing conditions on the Garmisch Townhomes site to what is permitted/ required on the same site with the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District standards. Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2 Development Existing MDMF Complies? Standard (Permitted/ required) Lot Size 26,013 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Complies Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 feet Front: 20 feet Legal Nonconforming Side (North): 21 feet Side: 20 feet Complies Side (South): 5 feet Side: 20 feet Legal Nonconforming Rear: 90+ Feet Rear: 20 Feet Complies Maximum Height 35 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Complies Sloped Roof: 38 feet Maximum Dwelling 5 units 10.75 units (18 Complies units/acre du/acre) GRFA 9,965* 14,567 sq. ft. Complies (Permitted) Site coverage 4,200 sq. ft. or 16% 11,706 sq. ft. or 45% Complies maximum (Permitted) Town of Vail Page 2 1/19/2016 Minimum Landscaping 18,300 sq. ft. or 70% 7,804 sq. ft. or 30% (Required) Complies Required Parking 12 spaces 10 spaces Complies (Required) Parking Location One half of required One half of required Complies parking enclosed. parking enclosed. No parking No parking permitted Legal Nonconforming permitted in the front in the front setback setback (20') (20') * GRFA will be verified at time of Development Application submittal. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, upon first reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Council passes the following motion: "The Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2016, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, the Community Development Department recommends the Council makes the following findings: ""Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 14, 2015 and the evidence and testimony presented and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town. 2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " V. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2016, with attachments B. PEC Memorandum, dated December 14, 2015, with attachments C. December 14, 2015, PEC meeting results Town of Vail Page 4 1/19/2016 ORDINANCE NO. 3 SERIES OF 2016 AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR A REZONING OF LOTS 15-A THROUGH 15-E, GARMISCH TOWNHOUSES, FROM TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY DISTRICT TO MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2308 GARMISCH DRIVE, LOT 15, BLOCK G, VAIL DAS SCHONE FILING 2, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town"), is a home rule Town duly existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado and its home rule charter (the "Charter"); and, WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; and, WHEREAS, Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, sets forth the procedures for amending a zone district boundary; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, (the "subject property"); and, WHEREAS, on August 7, 1973, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, to establish comprehensive zoning regulations for the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a zoning designation more appropriate for the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the zone district boundary amendment to rezone the subject property from Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multi -family District; and, WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the zone district boundary amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and, WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment to the Town Code furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, Ordinance No. 3, Series 2016 -1- 1/19/2016 WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment is consistent with Section 12-3-7c1 b(2) of the Vail Town Code, specifically that the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds and determines that the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. This ordinance adopts the following zone district boundary amendment as further described in Exhibit A : A rezoning, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District Section 2. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and the evidence and testimony presented in consideration of this ordinance, the Vail Town Council finds and determines the follows: a. The zone district boundary amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; b. The zone district boundary amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and, c. The zone district boundary amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. d. This ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause Ordinance No. 3, Series 2016 -2- 1/19/2016 or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of January, 2016, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 2nd day of February, 2016, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 2nd day of February, 2016. Ordinance No. 3, Series 2016 -3- 1/19/2016 Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 3, Series 2016 1/19/2016 Zone District Amendmen Vail Das Schone Filing 2, Block G, Lots 15A - 15E (Garmisch Townhouses) 238 Garmisch Drive 4 125 250 Td" Wc"LL' Ordinance No. 3, Series 2016 -5- 1/19/2016 5- 1/19/2016 TOWN OF 7L` Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 14, 2015 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150034) Applicant: Garmisch Townhomes, represented by Triumph Development LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Garmisch Townhomes, represented by Triumph Development, LLC, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town Council, for a zone district boundary amendment, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive , Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District. The boundary amendment will provide a zoning more suitable for the project and allow appropriate redevelopment/expansion consistent with the Medium Density Multiple -Family District. It is anticipated that a Design Review Board (DRB) application for an addition to Unit E, the easternmost unit in the building, will be submitted subsequent to a successful rezoning of the property. 1/19/2016 The applicant has supplied a narrative dated November 18, 2015 that is included as Attachment A. Staff has received no correspondence from property owners in the vicinity concerning the proposed rezoning at the time of the preparation for this memorandum. III. BACKGROUND The subject site was platted as Lot 15, Block G of Vail das Schone Filing #2 in Eagle County in 1969. The Garmisch Townhomes were approved and constructed in 1976/1977 and platted as a Minor Subdivision in Eagle County in 1978. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in October of 1986 and subsequently zoned Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS). The application of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) resulted in the property becoming legal nonconforming in terms of dimensional and development standards. The areas of nonconformity include use, density, height and setbacks. Improvements to the property since annexation have been confined to repainting and reroofing. No increases in Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) have been permitted due to the existing non conformities. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter II — Land Use Goals and Policies (In Part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Town of Vail Page 2 1/19/2016 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. B. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: Purpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. Town of Vail Page 3 1/19/2016 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Article 12-6D Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District 12-6D-1: Purpose: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-2: Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. 12-6D-3: Conditional Uses: Town of Vail Page 4 1/19/2016 The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. 12-6D-4: Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses shall be permitted: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family and two-family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-6D-5: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-6: Setbacks: Town of Vail Page 5 1/19/2016 In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). 12-6D-7: Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33). 12-6D-8: Density Control: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area; plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and 8 of this section, a type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type I employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing type I employee housing Town of Vail Page 6 1/19/2016 unit may be replaced with a type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet or greater. 12-6D-9: Site Coverage: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. 12-6D-10: Landscaping and Site Development: At least sixty percent (60%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10) (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6D-11: Parking: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. Article 12-G Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District 12-6G-1: Purpose: The medium density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple -family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. 12-6G-2: Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings. Town of Vail Page 7 1/19/2016 12-6G-3: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. 12-6G-4: Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-6G-5: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be Town of Vail Page 8 1/19/2016 of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. 12-6G-6: Setbacks: In the MDMF district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). 12-6G-7: Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38). 12-6G-8: Density Control: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Not more than fifty six (56) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. 12-6G-9: Site Coverage: Site coverage shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the total site area. 12-6G-10: Landscaping and Site Development: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6G-11: Parking: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (1/2) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view Town of Vail Page 9 1/19/2016 from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. V. SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Use Designation Zoning North: Open Space N/A, National Forest South: Medium Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) East: Medium Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) West: Medium Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) VI. ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON The following table compares the dimensional standards of the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District and the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District. General Development P/S MDMF Standard Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet Side: 15 feet Side: 20 feet Rear: 15 Feet Rear: 20 Feet Maximum Height Flat Roof: 30 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Sloped Roof: 33 feet Sloped Roof 38 feet Maximum Dwelling 2 DU +EHU per site 18 units per acre units/acre GRFA 46% for 1 st 10,000 sq. ft. 56% of Buildable Site 38% for 2nd 5,000 sq. ft. Area 13% for 3rd 15,000 sq. ft. 6% in excess of 25,000 sq. ft. Site coverage 20% 45% maximum Minimum Landscaping 60% 30% Required Parking Per Sec. 12-10 Per Sec. 12-10 Town of Vail Page 10 1/19/2016 VII. The table below compares the existing conditions on the Garmisch with what is permitted/ required on the same site with the Medium Family (MDMF) District standards. Garmisch Townhomes Site Townhomes site Density Multiple- Development Existing MDMF Complies? Standard (Permitted/ required) Lot Size 26,013 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Complies Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 feet Front: 20 feet Legal Nonconforming Side (North): 21 feet Side: 20 feet Complies Side (South): 5 feet Side: 20 feet Legal nonconforming Rear: 90+ Feet Rear: 20 Feet Complies Maximum Height 35 feet Flat Roof: 35 feet Complies Sloped Roof: 38 feet Maximum Dwelling 5 units 10.75 units (18 Complies units/acre du/acre) GRFA 9,965* 14,567 sq. ft. Complies (Permitted) Site coverage 4,200 sq. ft. or 16% 11,706 sq. ft. or 45% Complies maximum (Permitted) Minimum 18,300 sq. ft. or 7,804 sq. ft. or 30% Complies Landscaping 70% (Required) Required Parking 12 spaces 10 spaces Complies (Required) Parking Location One half of required One half of required Complies parking enclosed. parking enclosed. No parking No parking permitted Legal nonconforming permitted in the front in the front setback setback (20') (20') * GRFA will be verified at time of Development Application submittal. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CRITERIA Per Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, before acting on a zone district boundary amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this proposal: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Town of Vail Page 11 1/19/2016 Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (in fill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following definition of the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation: MDR Medium Density Residential The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/ public uses such as parks and open space, churches and fire stations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following general and specific purposes of the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations: 12-1-2: Purpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will Town of Vail Page 12 1/19/2016 conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the following purpose of the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District identified in Section 12-6G-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code: The medium density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate Town of Vail Page 13 1/19/2016 with multiple -family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. Existing surrounding uses include single family, duplex and multi -family residential uses. The scale and intensity of these uses is compatible with the uses permitted under the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property and many of those in the general vicinity as Medium Density Residential, indicating their potential for possible future multi -family development. Future development on the subject site, including alterations and expansions of the existing structure is compatible with the proposed zone district. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is suitable with the existing and potential uses on the site and with potential and existing surrounding uses. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The proposed zone district amendment from the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District to the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District for the property located at 2308 Garmisch Drive will allow for future improvements that are harmonious with its surrounding land uses. The rezoning is consistent with municipal development objectives as it is compatible with Chapter Vlll, Implementation, of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. This section of the plan specifically tasks the community in evaluating the existing zoning map and current land uses for opportunities to bring these into conformance with the Land Use Plan when community interests are served. As noted under criteria number one, the rezoning is consistent with the development objectives of the town. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. Town of Vail Page 14 1/19/2016 The development standards of Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District will ensure appropriate, compatible development that is in the best interest of the community. This zoning amendment does not result in the granting of privilege nor is it incompatible with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, two tests for a determination of spot zoning. Therefore, Staff does not believe the applicant's proposal constitutes a spot zoning and finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. Staff finds that rezoning of the subject properties from the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P/S) District to the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District will not substantially alter the impacts on the natural environment in comparison to existing conditions. All appropriate measures to address issues including stormwater run off and water quality shall be required with any development proposal. The property does not contain any desirable natural features for consideration. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. As identified above, Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) District. The rezoning furthers the purpose of the zone district by recognizing the subject parcel as a suitable location for medium density multi -family development, designed and constructed to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district, and the greater neighborhood. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The subject properties were constructed in 1977 prior to annexation into the Town of Vail in 1986. The initial application of zoning contemplated the eventual discontinuance of the resulting nonconforming use. The adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan recognized the inconsistencies between existing land uses and zoning designations and provided guidance on steps moving forward in addressing these inconsistencies when it is in the community's interest. Town of Vail Page 15 1/19/2016 Therefore, Staff believes the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150034). Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 150034)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of this Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 14, 2015 and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Town of Vail Page 16 1/19/2016 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Submittal dated November 18, 2015 with Attachments. C. Property Photos D. Town of Vail Official Land Use Map in the vicinity of the subject property. E. Town of Vail Official Zoning Map in the vicinity of the subject property. Town of Vail Page 17 1/19/2016 1 • too 1 ! All, r �f w 1 4D 140 .. r'�"' ►ice Baumstark residence —November 18th. 2015 Address: 2308 Garmisch Drive #15E Owner Request: Triumph Custom Homes www.triumphdev.com The Baumstark family has owned 2308 Garmisch Drive #15E since 1988. Our family has outgrown the existing home and we desire to remodel and add to our current unit which will allow our continued enjoyment for many years to come. We are recommending a rezoning, from the current zoning primary / secondary, to MDMF (Medium density Multi -family) which better suites the existing structure and use. This will clean up all non -conforming issues except the existing front and "west" side setbacks. All other zoning requirements will be met. Mike Foster of Triumph Custom homes has met with George Ruther regarding this proposed change and he believes this cleans up the glaring non -conformity today. This application will be submitted to Planning and Environment Commission (PEC) for their recommendation to Town Council for approval. Once PEC / Town Council approval is complete, the revisions will need to be submitted to and reviewed by to assure all Design Review Board Guidelines are met. Property History and Current: Original Neighborhood Plat - Lot 15, Block G of Vail das Schone Filing #2. Platted June 1969 in Eagle County. The Minor Subdivision Plat for Garmisch Townhouse development was approved as a townhouse project in Eagle County and platted August 1978 with 5 units. Platted as separate lots with Declarations and Covenants governing the community. Not a common property, but this will be how Town of Vail views it for zoning purposes. When the property was original approved for development it was in a Multi -family Zone District - R/M/F. Property was annexed in to the Town of Vail in October 1986. Despite the existing townhome improvements, it was zoned Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential to allow and encourage single family and duplex development. Unlike many Townhome communities in Vail, there is no common property. There are only utility easements that are written in a manner that says they cannot be adjusted to the P. 970.479.9990 12 Vail Road, Suite 400 F. 970.479.0619 Vail, CO 81657 1/19/2016 detriment of the other unit owners. Unit #15E is an end unit and rebuilding will not impact these common utilities with other units. The Declarations, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for Garmisch Townhomes outline simple cost sharing of the maintenance of shared elements such as water and sewer, as well as the obligation to pay changes to common elements or impact to neighboring property caused by any one property. The Covenants required approval of all unit owners for material changes to the exterior of any unit. Lot Details and Zoning Requirements: Despite being built in a multifamily zone in Eagle County, when the property was annexed into the Town of Vail, it was prescribed Primary/Secondary zoning. This zoning made the Townhouses a non -conforming use. This zoning indicates that TOV wants single-family homes or duplexes vs. existing multifamily zoning. By rezoning this parcel to MDMF it better fits the existing 5 unit townhome structure. MDMF Code Actual/Proposed Notes Site size 26,013 Density / Acre 9 5 Meets Zoning Total GRFA allowed 56% 14,567 Meets Zoning Site Coverage 45% 11,706 Meets Zoning Landscaping 30% 7,804 Meets Zoning Height to Sloped Roof 38 35 Meets Zoning Setbacks: Front 20 0 Does not meet Setbacks: Side 20 5' Does not meet Setbacks: Rear 20 30' Meets Zoning www.triumphdev.com 1/19/2016 Conclusion: When the Town of Vail annexed the property, it prescribed new zoning to the area. This zoning made our townhouse community a non -conforming use. Our townhome structure can be rezoned to meet the majority of the criteria for MDMF, main one being units per acre, S. One item that will require a variance is existing front and side setbacks. Many other mult-family structures makeup our neighborhood. This will set the precedent for cleaning up their zoning as well. Tying our property to this non -conforming zoning of P/S handcuffs our property from making improvements. Anything the community tries to do to improve or reposition the property will be non -conforming to the current zoning. Please allow our project to move forward on this rezoning based on the MDMF zoning regulations of the Town. www.triumphdev.com 1/19/2016 Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Delp n W)) 90%0)- Sian Ilov 7:43 PM :- IEI rnIal a_x, :raprn ls.aorn t, ❑ I Map Explorer � r f . JotAir ' ,10, : i i IP "Imp Ile - p k Ti/ 2016 R� 44"1 IM at —- Mlinsuremont Markers Salected Parccls Dl recti c ns/R€ tAl nR Pv_ Eagle County Parcels Parcel Deta]s SIze - Apprax. (Acres) y Aderess D.mensions - Approx. (Feet) C.. rre nt M. LS Listings _j L.Inags Parcel Oudi-nes I''ao y Office Lisdngs My Company Listings Pending Listings _j Rental I-IsCings Open Mouses (14 days) Expired POLS Listings Past 30 Days ` Past 31-90 Days Past 3--2 Months T IVI LS L sted Sales T Past 0 Io 6 Months Sold Listings i Parcel Oudlnes Past 7 to 12 N c nths _j ,W Sc:d Listings _j,fV Parcel Outlines ak Zoom rn to enabfe ngcfive layers 7 • i° � 1 _ 4 Ilk �r. 3 F* 4' OrA _ f r e s �y c _ u s , s f a.1p I_IL norp rpz ��.•- Y� �F �• �,.i' , � r - - - ` - _. _. - ��' i v e� °' � �d��� - MOM _ I•�. 1y55 ��' , ife }. . �: a •' _ p. -` ,.� u - '., t - IVB - `�tR r_ tw T - - �r P _ w IL q Aw ° r• - _. , IR -+.a,. " - - ;. _' �"7 P•':u gi wow :I '•0% -` r' - • _ z S2A` rP. �, . .. � .�' _ _ � - .k, .: •! .d. °ro r ,- t I •r r r - .Of IL ALL 1, ,+ - �Ik Ak �,.LA' .► » A. ` - i{•.. P- r y- s.r a i•-J.� fi v .,, ea 1-l°F..'�I Ar _ _ s AA r > • °4 _ 5 :»- - - Cj A,+ a • T re i R - f A- ' F . All V-40 . 6 tv kik I?, 1 IOd — s L. v . = I +I Itlott s etra m e 0,' i ,,�.. _ . a ^ ley; 0 MEN .� . .. Imagery '3D2 0 15 Gaogle, M i3p Iiala 02-D7 5 Google Terms Privacy Sond rLeCll,a A DIM r l e e 4ALN ONE — -, t.,„ - �• _ - r a:_ s * < � ., .� .'.1,44 � a • 14 _ zi s,. - a - W� ` v Nop :A!'' a v. !! •!,_ .:pT, ,9r y -, ow - 1 e : c k atY s �t r a YA Ir SAL fy 4- r �- F �- { r 4i P_ : •- M, ... te. r ! 1. ,- k • _. L: a -+- i,e-' , • .. ' •. �- - '_ � a � •- - , , IL OL N P ' ” ,� R.�- �, - .j -' .� -. �'. .�-_�. 's,' •„.. fir., z _ Nd,, L 2"t t IL J ' t ° , + r _:.A - - . a. OF ip n i _ dP !,-” tea. v'. '.:�. .' _ ._. A i�, , ! -._+. ' ' 4 + •'° x•� a e`: , u — a 1 rr q . n a a i• a ...06, r - 's i : F y 1 _ „ s r t - : fez •:� ._ � I_ _ old 416, t l M � r� # • _ - �.. k S v k'i� YPPIiIC.NFR�4°. MAN MEN r ra Fn bge '91 d 4V & I- . .� • � e . � • 2015 3.0j% NO}I Send feedback 100 ft _ J a -' i sem. - r. ALI ti .N ett a 4 ), �''� _ .s:ter •' ..� .�.� r Ad 1/19/2016 9 e �a • IL i S" t 0 ;10 ■ �_-.fir: � r!,-#- 68mm41 K y 1 � sv o. R s F+ i - •b. _ - -�- I _ ��i 1 •`fir .��. s ti +�. s r, M t i 7 tis IL a F, l2dly- d 0 �y Ikq`q I Y: ,r oo : t T 1 � J 141 64 ' 1 f -1 4 � 4 I 1 P . 1 1 • f df �T w J V f t pr a z46_ - ftf s a � - f � , � � a:� ,� - i ` y . -, moi. -v,� •. 4�. - .. '', 7. y t _ s ,s �' `si � .y, �'�'M ; • "� �� . .>, �1F ,.,�, amu'Aw44 IL NA IL r _1114 Rv_ Official Land Use Map Town of Vail, Colorado LAND USE DESIGNATIONS I III &du Rw. d u FAIJ Lu%v Duirsily kw-,tdaritial Mudium Daosdy Rasid4wtial 146h Nnsity Residential Resort Xwommodations and SarvirAs Girm,runity Offioa Village mastur Plan burisl i4a@d RwduvePjpimmit Nlugtui F'Wn 0ammunAy Cu 11111 I+H uj 1/19/2016 Tiarsbim Ama Plublc.?Sim-Pubhc Ski Rasa Park Opan Spa0a Nat Dimigriatad SIF Ski Flu Ila I Crack v , Tum Baun6ary Zoning Map in the vicinity of the Garmische Townhouses r4s] 1X17 �3 i:a 111 lki mw. i"4. . 6-1x1 z.-W—d We ux I OAU -1 I Srpa-I .nb ii—b-fmi pri - Lari.�tl Na.c U-2(LW-2j I"eai'.alrtl+i Ac«�:fl.l �=mi±.�IS.ma C.i. yGu[} O 1�1s+.rtAt l•rrt.r'A' �fI{�rd il:�.;-4arr 3�ay. y.HGJ O Eve�Ylffl�Imkaol�t O'.ii-;m ll..i..b^.rNa - W. ,, u—te WLft+. I.I+I 151G6x I ®isc r.l a a.— sp— W -1, :i.r.'.}'4tA5a+1.�1�1'Ei1�1.1 ;. -!tiY.s. lax cira�yLl OmwP tlx. Il.ai..b- (win © I`Ji: Ai� lnvj �Uv Catl!)vx :1:9A-$ -I"Atle haat 21FAm -nrk-G:v, - C.I.r.a[. Cc ZCCI: I - Gvm.r.'.. Ce.3(CG31 IIdF.I.A U..c.l'w M1sW.I dGl.Ara: 1/19/2016 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of Mi. December 14, 2015, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order — Members Present: Brian Gillette, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, Kirk Hansen Members Absent: Webb Martin, John Rediker Chair Pratt indicated that item #4 (Religious Institutions) and 5 (Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek) on the agenda are asked to be changed in the order on the agenda to accommodate Scott Todd, Golf Course Superintendent . The Commission agreed to make this change. 2. A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-713-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road (Crespelle Restaurant)/Lots A -C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150033) Applicant: 104-6 LLC, represented by Drew Riley Planner: Jonathan Spence Mr. Spence introduced the application. Rehabilitation is proposed of a former clothing store into a restaurant. An outdoor patio is proposed, mostly on town owned property. The layout of the patio was discussed. The Public Works and Fire departments have reviewed the application. The barrier for the patio will be removed each night to provide access to the trash area. Hansen- What is typical lease rate for these patios on Town property? Spence — About $6 per square foot. Applicant — No presentation Public Comment Russell Shay, owner of next door space - If I have problems with the seating encroaching into my store. What is my recourse or process to fix this issue? Spence — Barrier location is fixed and should not change over time. If there are problems, contact Town staff. Sasha Gross, Operator of the ski lockers next door - Seating looks like they are right in front of the door to my space (locker rooms). Post and trash cans look to block access to my door. Applicant, Mark Hollenbeck, General Contractor — Distance to column is 5' 8". Appears to us that there is plenty of room for access. Gross — Can't block the access to my door. You would not block access to Surefoot, why would you block access to my store? Dave Segerdahl, one of the owners of Crespelle - We gave paperwork to the building manager, John. He told us we did not have any arguments. We are happy to address these issues. Gross — We have owned the space for 30 years, this is the first time this has happened. People walking toward our door up Bridge Street will have their access to our door blocked. 1/19/2016 Segerdahl — We are happy to work with the neighbors. Close the public comment Action: Table to December 28, 2015 Motion: Gillette Second: Hansen Vote: 4-0-0 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lots 15-A through 15-E, Garmisch Townhouses, from Two -Family Primary/Secondary District to Medium Density Multiple -Family District, located at 2308 Garmisch Drive, Lot 15, Block G, Vail das Schone Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150034) Applicant: Garmisch Townhomes, represented by Triumph Development Planner: Jonathan Spence Mr. Spence introduced the application — Property was built in 1976 — 1977, annexed in 1986, zoned as Two -Family Primary / Secondary does not conform to built property. As a result, no improvements or additions have been allowed. Future Land Use Map for this area shows the project in Medium Density Residential area, in contrast to Low Density Residential in other areas. Proposal is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Staff recommends approval of this request. Gillette — Chart showing setbacks, property is non -conforming. Are they redeveloping the eastern -most unit? Spence - There is a possibility of an addition to that unit. All future development would need to meet development standards. Pratt — Why would this be MDMF (Medium Density Multiple Family) and not LDMF (Low Density Multiple Family)? It would be much more GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area), but LDMF would be same setbacks, but less GFRA. Spence — GRFA is one of the limiting factors. Off the top of my head I cannot point to a building in LDMF (that is conforming.) Applicant Mike Foster — We did this due to the added square footage. Due to the pie shape of the lot, it allows about 1,400 square feet of additional GRFA. Side setback and topography will also be limiting factors. That is one of the reasons we requested MDMF. Western setback is about 5 feet from property line. Spence — Internal lot lines would not be considered for setback purposes. Hansen — What is to prevent redevelopment to build 10 units on this site? Spence — Parking may limit the redevelopment Public Comment: None Gillette — I am curious on the alternatives to this zoning as requested. Would like to know if one district is better than another. Spence — Townhouse zoning is specific to those properties in Vail Village. LDMF or MDMF are really the only options. Pratt- Only difference is GRFA and units per acre. Gillette — If they built out, would they have enough parking? 1/19/2016 Spence — It would be challenging to meet the parking requirements. Mike Foster — 4500 square foot increase would be shared among the existing townhomes. Gillette — Do you have room for parking to build out the 1400 square feet? Foster — Yes, we do. There will be no common elements. There is no HOA. Spence — LDMF is behind Breakaway West. Sandstone is Low Density Pratt — Reviewed the allowed density and GRFA in LDMF and MDMF zones. Setbacks and Height are the same. Site coverage is different. Hansen — Staff write up was good. I can see why you are proposing these changes. Proposal seems to better support the development than existing zoning. Lockman — Surrounding development appears to be medium density. Spence — One of our tasks is to review developments that are nonconforming with their zoning. Lockman — There are a lot of properties in town that do not match their zoning. Pratt — My concern is that someone will buy all 5 units and redevelopment the site as 12 units. My question is if MDMF vs LDMF are appropriate. Foster- Difference in GRFA is about 1000 sf per unit. Gillette — If that parcel is built out, it would be inappropriate for that neighborhood. Pratt — Does a 500 square foot addition or a 1200 square foot addition meet the Town's goals? My fear is that someone will develop the whole site and we would see 12 units and not 5 units. Gillette — This lot is by far the largest. Even with the extra lot size, we get only 500 square feet more GRFA. Foster — If applicant wants to take advantage of this, they need to build down the hill. Action: Recommend Approval to Vail Town Council Motion: Hansen Second: Lockman Vote: 3-1-0 Gillette opposed. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to allow for a zoning code amendment pursuant to section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Religious Institutions as a Conditional Use in all zone districts except the Heavy Service (HS) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 150030) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Mr. Neubecker walked the Commission through the staff report and what is being proposed. Religious Institutions would be added as a conditional use in 11 zone districts. Chris discussed the changes incorporated following the previous PEC meeting. Gillette -Which of these districts currently allow similar uses (such as meeting rooms, etc.)? Neubecker-We coordinated the uses so that Religious Institutions would follow the same zoning as meeting rooms in all the zone districts where proposed. Gillette -Why didn't we just incorporate the religious use into the definition of other uses, such as meeting rooms? 1/19/2016 Neubecker — We considered it, but the parking demand is different. Gillette -The parking demands don't seem all that different. Neubecker -In Vail the parking requirement for religious uses is set by the PEC while meeting rooms are listed by square feet of seating floor area. Other communities have different parking requirements for meeting rooms vs religious uses. How many people arrive per vehicle may be the difference. Gillette -If we delete religious uses and add them to the definition to conference rooms and meeting rooms, we would be done. We should look at the parking generated by the existing chapel. Neubecker-If we are ok with the parking, then perhaps we can go that route. We have aligned the uses to be compliant with RUILPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). This is also consistent with the Town's vertical zoning aspect. Dominic Mauriello, Applicant - What has been proposed aligns with what we had proposed originally. What is proposed today will allow religious uses to incorporate into existing buildings. I support keeping the uses distinct because of how varied religious uses are. I like the ability for an applicant to propose a parking rate. I support recommending to Town Council this amendment. Gillette- Still supports simplifying it. Would like to get rid of religious uses and incorporate them into the definitions of convention center, meeting room, conference space and theater. Hansen -Does see a significant difference in parking requirements. Respects staff's approach. Would support staff's recommendation. Lockman -Supports staff's approach. Was concerned about the residential neighborhoods but supports the approach now taken. Pratt -Can understand Gillette's intent but believes in the Town of Vail that meeting rooms and conference space demands are generally driven internally and not externally. Recognizes the variables in religious uses and supports keeping them separate. Gillette -We should consider how we might be in violation with RLUIPA by setting the parking requirement. Pratt- The meeting room parking requirement is quite strict and what we are proposing is less discriminating than applying the meeting room or theater requirements. Mauriello - Does not think what is proposed will be problematic with RLUIPA. Action: Recommend Approval to Vail Town Council Motion: Lockman Second: Hansen Vote: 3-1-0 Gillette opposed. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristen Bertuglia Environmental Manager Kristen Bertuglia introduced the project and that the focus of this meeting will be on the best management practices of the Vail Golf Course with respect to water quality (application of pesticides, buffer zones, etc). 1/19/2016 Scott Todd, Golf Course Superintendent, walked the commission through a PowerPoint presentation on the current practices employed at the Golf Course. Gillette -Are there any opportunities to increase the size of the pond and stream buffers? Todd -Always a balancing act between course playability and water quality. Hansen -How is the tree spraying done? Todd- We contract out and treat those trees near water with direct trunk spraying. Continued the presentation including water and soil testing. Pratt -What percent of the town water supply is generated by the wells at the golf course? Todd- Not entirely sure. Described where the existing wells are located. Pratt -Is the majority coming from the golf course wells? Greg Hall, Public Works Director -About half (three). Pratt -Is there a difference in water quality between the golf course wells and other wells? Bertuglia - The surface water testing differ all along Gore Creek, even though the entirety of the Creek is listed as impaired under the 303(d) list. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District tests for drinking water quality standards and could report on those results, but I do not believe there are any drops in drinking water quality. Hansen- Who is doing the testing and what is being tested? Bertuglia-There are a lot of organizations testing the waters including the town, water district, state and federal. The testing information is shared and work has been done to centralize a database. Gillette- Did the consultants (Lotic) provide any recommendations related to the golf course? Bertuglia - Yes, as in many areas throughout town they recommended increased buffers zones and attention to application of pesticides. Gillette- We should look at the buffer zones that do not meet the recommended 25 feet and then analyze on how it would affect play. Todd - If you find a problem then yes, let's extend the buffers but if a problem hasn't been identified then there may not be a need to extend the buffers. I would like to understand the basis for the recommendation. Gillette- Is there a question as to what is being tested? Are they testing for the actual fertilizers used? Bertuglia -The recommendations are as a result of testing for macro invertebrate levels, not drinking water standards as the testing is different. Todd- We do not analyze based on the bugs but rather the drinking water standards. Gillette -Does the course use pesticides? Todd -Yes (pesticides are a catch all term — it covers herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.) Pratt- Do you test for the heavy metals and the like, similar to the water district testing? 1/19/2016 Todd -Discussed their testing protocol and how pesticides are applied. Mostly test for nutrients (phosphorus, pH, ammonia) Gillette- Does it make sense to get coordination around the testing? Bertuglia -Yes. Agrees that perception may not be accurate related to the Golf Course's effect on water quality. Gillette -Do other organizations certify golf courses besides Audubon International? Todd- Audubon is the major one and the only one he is aware of. He also discussed trends in the industry related to environmental health as having gotten much better over time. Hansen -How are hard surfaced (impervious) areas addressed? Todd-Hardscapes include the cart paths or the main parking lot. Take care in the adjustment of the sprinklers to keep the water off of the hardscape. Greg Hall -New parking lot is designed with water quality in mind. Public Comment Jim Lamont -Need coordination in testing, especially ground water contamination. More testing should provide more answers. Lockman -Strongly agree that we need to coordinate testing. Understands the complexities of the golf course (playability). Hansen -Impressed with the environmental stewardship of the golf course. Supports testing coordination. Gillette -Impressed with the work the course has done. Supports looking at testing and determining what the problems are and where they are located. Pratt -Thankful for the presentation. Supports looking at the well zones as far as contamination. Supports testing related to drinking water and the bugs. Bertuglia -For clarification, when referring to coordination, is there a data set to provide in advance of the plan adoption or would the Commissioners prefer to see a high priority action item identified that calls for data coordination and more accessibility (public or otherwise)? Pratt -A lot of organizations are testing. Why can't there be just one testing group? Bertuglia - USGS, USFS, ERWSD, Eagle River Watershed Council, Town, EPA, all have different mandates for testing, different funding sources as well. Agree we could demonstrate the data/coordinate it better. Gillette- We do not need the results of the testing but the action item should be about coordinating the testing. Hansen -Would like to see all the data. Bertuglia -We will share what we have and also present an action item. Action: Table to January 11, 2016 Motion: Lockman Second: Gillette Vote: 4-0-0 1/19/2016 6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the former Cascade Village Theater and Colorado Mountain College property to include 14 dwelling units, one (1) onsite Employee Housing Unit and the preservation 4,087 square feet of existing commercial, retail and office space, located at 1310 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This project was previously approved most recently in 2007 and expired on June 1, 2015. (PEC150014) Table to January 25, 2016 Applicant: Ultimate Cascade LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Table to January 25, 2016 Motion: Gillette Second: Hansen Vote: 4-0-0 7. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019) Table to December 28, 2015 Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther Action: Table to December 28, 2015 Motion: Gillette Second: Hansen Vote: 4-0-0 8. Approval of Minutes November 23, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Action: Table to December 28, 2015 Motion: Hansen Second: Gillette Vote: 4-0-0 9. Informational Update parking. Mr. Spence provided Commissioner Pratt with requested information concerning on -street 10. Adjournment 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. 1/19/2016 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016. An Ordinance Amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for Religious Institutions as a Conditional Use in all zone districts except the Heavy Service (HS) District; Outdoor Recreation (OR); Natural Area Preservation (NAP); Hillside Residential (HR); Single Family Residential (SFR); Two -Family Residential (R) ; Two - Family Primary/Secondary (PS); Housing (H); Vail Village Townhomes (VVT); and Arterial Business (ABD); amending the definition of Religious Institutions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016, upon second reading. BACKGROUND: In September 2015, the Community Development Department was approached by a citizen concerning the lack of zoning districts that allow Religious Institutions. After considering the application, and also considering applicable federal laws, the Department determined that this issue extends beyond the commercial zone districts and needed greater consideration. This ordinance will also bring the Town's Zoning Regulations into greater conformance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve with modifications, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2016, upon second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No 2 Series of 2016 Religious Institutions First Reading Zoning Map Religious Institutions 1/19/2016 ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 2016 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DISTRICTS: HEAVY SERVICE (HS); OUTDOOR RECREATION (OR); NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP); HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR); SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SFR); TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R); TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY (PS); HOUSING (H); VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOMES (VVT); AND ARTERIAL BUSINESS (ABD); AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments on November 9, 2015 and December 14, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of these amendments at its December 14, 2015 meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Council; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality; 1/19/2016 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to establish additional zoning districts that will allow for Religious Institutions, thereby improving the ability to locate Religious Institutions in the Town and helping bring the Vail Town Code into greater compliance the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Language added is shown in bold, and language proposed for removal is shown as strikethreug4. Section 2. Section 12-2-2 DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended as follows: RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION: A building or portion of a building used primarily for public worship by any number of congregations, along with those incidental and secondary uses such as a dwelling unit for members of the clergy or other spiritual leaders, office space, meeting rooms, and classrooms for religious education and community meeting space, but excluding buildings used exclusively for residential, educational, recreational or other uses not associated with public worship. Includes churches, chapels, cathedrals, temples, and similar designations. Section 3. Section 12-6E-3 CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: 12-6E-3 CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the RC district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this tile: Religious institutions. Section 4. Section 12-6F-3 CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: 12-6E-3 CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the LDMF district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this tile: Religious institutions. Section 5. Section 12-6G-3 CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: 12-6G-3 CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the MDMF district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use 1/19/2016 permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this tile: Religious institutions. Section 6. Section 12-6H-3 CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: 12-6H-3 CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this tile: Religious institutions. Section 7. Section 12-7B-2 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 8. Section 12-713-4 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 9. Section 12-7C-4 CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 10. Section 12-7D-2: CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. 1/19/2016 Section 11. Section 12-7E-4: CONDITIONAL USES is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 12. Section 12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 13. Section 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 14. Section 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 15. Section 12-71-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. 1/19/2016 Section 16. Section 12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 17. Section 12-71-4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: is hereby amended as follows: B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 18. Section 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES: is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. Section 19. Section 12-8D-3 CONDITIONAL USES: is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base/recreation district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious Institutions. Section 20. Section 12-8E-3 CONDITIONAL USES: is hereby amended as follows: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base/recreation 2 district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Religious institutions. 1/19/2016 Section 21. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 22. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 23. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 24. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 5th day of January, 2016 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 19th day of January, 2016, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 1/19/2016 INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 19th day of January, 2016 Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 1/19/2016 Proposed Zoning Amendment - Regulation of Religious Institutions - ZONE DISTRICTS CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS - High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) — Public Accommodation (PA) _ Agricultural and Open Space (A) - General Use (GU) Excluding proper11, owned by govemment or quasiyovemmemt agencies. ZONE DISTRICTS PROPOSED TO ALLOW FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS - Residential Cluster (RC) = Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU-2) Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF) Commercial Core 1 (CC1) Commercial Service Center (CSC) Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF) Commercial Core 2 (CC2) Agricultural and Open Space (A) High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Ski Base/Recreation (SBR) Public Accommodation (PA) Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) General Use (GU) Excluding properties owned by govemment orquasi-government agencies. eMiles 0 1 2 This map was created by Ne Town o1 Vail GIS Team. Use of this map h,,Id be for general purposes only. The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein. twhereahown,parcellhew,i isappr,,i,,te) TOWN OFVAIC Last Modified: November 30, 2015 TOWN OF VAIN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 19, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (8:10 p.m.) NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING TOPICS AND ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Ongoing agenda items DRB/PEC updates WS - 15 min.; Information Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items: 30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5 min.; Town Manager Report: 5 min. Future agenda items: Council Retreat Follow up Discussion - 2/2 Gore Creek Water Quality Plan Update - 2/2 Community Survey Discussion - 2/2 Proposed future agenda items Review Matrix on Multi -Use Facilities - TBD Vail Municipal Building Remodel Update - TBD Cleanup Title 12, zoning amendments- TBD Vail Trails Update - TBD Environmental Strategic Plan Update - TBD Eagle County School District Meeting w/ Board - TBD Ford Park Leases - TBD Peer City Visit to Aspen - TBD Open Lands Strategic Plan - TBD Pedestrian Crossings at Roundabouts & Bus Shelters Discussion - TBD VRD Agreement for Skate Park - TBD 1/19/2016