HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-07 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Meeting AgendaVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Afternoon Agenda TOWN Of VAJt'
Town Council Chambers
75 South Frontage Road W., Vail, CO 81657
11:00 AM, June 7, 2016
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time Council will
consider an item.
Public comment on any agenda item may be solicited by the Town Council.
1. Site Visits
1.1. East Vail Water Quality Projects along 1-70 Van will depart Vail Municipal 30 min.
Building at 11:05 a.m.
Presenter(s): Chad Salli, Project Engineer
Background: Site visit to review proposed water quality improvements
projects at three sites in East Vail along 1-70, two at MM 182 and one at MM
180. The design team is kicking off the projects with a review of the project
goals and design during the evening meeting.
1.2. Lunch will be served between 11:30 am and 12:00 pm
2. DRB / PEC Update
2.1. DRB/PEC Update 5 min.
Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager
3. Presentations / Discussion
3.1. Eagle County School District Board Update 45 min.
Presenter(s): Jason Glass, Eagle County School District Superintendent,
Kate Cocchiarella, President, Tessa Kirchner, Vice President, Marcie
Laidman, Red Sandstone Elementary Principal, Tom Braun, Braun
Associates, Inc.
Action Requested of Council: None - informational only.
Background: Vail Town Council meets periodically with Eagle County School
District officials to review strategic plans, capital projects, and updates
related to Red Sandstone Elementary School.
3.2. Vail Traffic Impact Fee Discussion 40 min.
Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, Carson Bise, President Tischler
Bise Inc.
Action Requested of Council: Input and direction
Background: The Town has budgeted this year to update the nexus study in
order to potentially adopt a Vail Traffic Impact Fee. Tischler Bise, who
previously completed the 2009 nexus study will provide a Traffic Impact Fee
101 presentation and lead a discussion to answer questions about Traffic
June 7, 2016 - Page 1 of 167
Impact Fees, process and schedule.
Staff Recommendation: Listen to presentation, ask pertinent questions, and
confirm the desire to move forward with updating the 2009 Traffic Impact
Fee nexus study to facilitate adopting a Traffic Impact Fee in the near
future.
3.3. Pedestrian Safety Enhancements for Frontage Roads and Roundabouts 30 min.
Update
Presenter(s): Greg Hall, Director of Public Works
Action Requested of Council: Provide feedback to the staff on the
information presented and direct staff to prepare a request for the second
budget supplemental request of 2016 from the recommended list of projects.
Background: The Town Council, citizens and staff have identified improving
pedestrian safety along the frontage roads in Vail as a priority. Specifically
the concerns have dealt with improving pedestrian safety on the frontage
road during overflow parking days.
Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to include the $410,000 request in the
July 2016 supplemental budget.
3.4. Discussion of Town of Vail Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) as an action- 40 min.
oriented outline of the strategies and actions intended to be used to make
critical decisions about next steps, funding sources, and resource allocation
during implementation over the next three to five years.
Presenter(s): Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager
Background: The process began with a VLHA Meeting on May 31st to gain
their input on the Vision, Mission, and preliminary Objectives as an outline
for this discussion.
Staff Recommendation: Town Council give concurrence on the process to
update the Housing Strategic Plan and give their input on the Vision,
Mission, and Policy Objectives presented.
4. Interviews for Boards and Commissions
4.1. Vail Local (Liquor) Licensing Authority Interviews (VLLA) 10 min.
Presenter(s): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Action Requested of Council: Interviewtwo applicants.
Background: There are five members who serve on the Vail Local Licensing
Authority as appointed by the Vail Town Council. There are two members'
terms which expire June 2016 so new appointments must be made. The
Authority considers and approves new liquor licenses, renewals and
transfers of liquor licenses as well as special event liquor permits.
5. Information Update
5.1. April 2016 Sales Tax Update
5.2. CSE DRAFT June 1, 2016 Meeting Minutes
5.3. Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Committee Follow -Up Memorandum
from May 17, 2016 VLMD meeting
5.4. Vail Transportation Master Plan Update
5.5. Quarterly update on the Sustainable Destination Project.
5 min.
June 7, 2016 - Page 2 of 167
5.6. March 2016 Vail Business Review
5.7. April 2016 Revenue Highlights
6. Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports
7. Executive Session
7.1. Executive Session pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive 45 min.
legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop
a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: KAABOO Festival and
Chamonix Housing Project
Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney
8. Recess
8.1. Recess estimated at 3:40 p.m.
Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website
www.vailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by Public Access Television Channel 5 and
available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to Channel 5 website
the week following meeting day, www.publicaccess5.org.
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.
June 7, 2016 - Page 3 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: East Vail Water Quality Projects along 1-70 Van will depart Vail Municipal Building at
11:05 a.m.
PRESENTER(S): Chad Salli, Project Engineer
BACKGROUND: Site visit to review proposed water quality improvements projects at three sites
in East Vail along 1-70, two at MM 182 and one at MM 180. The design team is kicking off the
projects with a review of the project goals and design during the evening meeting.
June 7, 2016 - Page 4 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Lunch will be served between 11:30 am and 12:00 pm
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 5 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: DRB/PEC Update
PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
May 18, 2016 DRB Meeting Results
May 23, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 6 of 167
0
rowN of va
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Pierce
Rollie Kjesbo
Doug Cahill
Peter Cope
Andy Forstl
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
May 18, 2016
Council Chambers
75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657
PROJECT ORIENTATION
SITE VISITS
MEMBERS ABSENT
1. Korch Residence — 4284 Columbine Drive
2. A2Z Holdings — 363 & 383 Beaver Dam Circle
3. Turri Residence — 1824 Glacier Court
MAIN AGENDA
A2Z Holdings LLC DRB16-0111
Final review of an exterior alteration (fence)
363 & 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 3
Applicant: A2Z Holdings LLC, represented by Rob Fawcett
ACTION: Denied
MOTION: Forstl SECOND: Cahill VOTE:
2. Turri Residence DRB16-0132
Final review of an addition (kitchen)
1824 Glacier Court Unit A/Lot 20, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Filing 3
Applicant: Ray & Heather Turri, represented by LKSM Design
ACTION: Approved, with conditions
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl VOTE
CONDITION(S):
1:OOpm
3:OOpm
Matt
4-0-1 (Pierce recused)
5-0-0
Matt
1. The applicant shall revise Sheet A3.1, dated April 22, 2016, to indicate that all new materials
and finishes shall match existing materials and finishes.
2. The applicant shall revise Sheets A2.1 and A3.1, dated April 22, 2016, to indicate that the
mullion of the proposed kitchen window will align with the mullion of the second floor window
above it.
3. The applicant shall revise Sheet A2.1 and the east elevation on Sheet A3.1, dated April 22,
2016, to indicate the proposed window nearest to the new entry will be a vertically oriented
window to align with the right edge of the window directly above it on the second floor.
4. The applicant shall revise the east and north elevations on Sheet A3.1, dated April 22, 2016, to
align to the height of the stucco, siding, and trim board with the existing stucco, siding, and
trim board.
Page 1
June 7, 2016 - Page 7 of 167
5. The garage doors on the west elevation of the duplex depicted on Sheet A3.1, dated April 22,
2016, shall be revised to indicate that each garage door shall match, or alternatively, the
applicant shall remove new garage door from the request.
3. Korch Residence DRB16-0154 Brian
Final review of an addition
4284 Columbine Drive Unit D/Parcel B, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Brad & Angela Korch, represented by La Dolce Architecture
ACTION: Approved, with conditions
MOTION: Forstl SECOND: Cahill VOTE: 3-2-0 (Kjesbo & Pierce opposed)
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by staff, a landscape plan specifying
plantings within the front landscape planter with at least one new tree with a mature vertical
height of at least eight (8) feet.
2. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by staff, a landscape plan for the back yard
that includes trees sufficient to soften the stone fagade of the house addition with trees
planted at a minimum of three (3) at eight (8) feet or taller or two (2) at twelve (12) feet or taller.
4. Northwoods DRB16-0157 Matt
Final review of a sign (Wall)
600 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Northwoods Condominium Association, represented by Patrick Pinnell
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cahill VOTE: 4-0-1 (Pierce recused)
STAFF APPROVALS
Vail Hotel Partners LLC DRB16-0100
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping, parking)
1295 Westhaven Drive (Cascade Club)/Cascade Village
Applicant: Vail Hotel Partners LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
AMPH LLC Martie Hutto DRB16-0127
Final review of changes to approved plans
16 Vail Road/Lot M & O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: AMPH, represented by Timbers Resorts
Mad Jack Trust DRB16-0134
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping)
1119 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 4, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 7 & 10
Applicant: Mad Jack Trust, represented by Rick Herwehe
Becker Appointment Trust DRB16-0137
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping)
4026 Lupine Drive/Lot 13, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Becker Appointment Trust, represented by Derrick Cottrell
Thomas Residence DRB16-0138
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping)
4027 Lupine Drive/Lot 6, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Trudy Thomas, represented by Derrick Cottrell
Page 2
Chris
Jonathan
Brian
Matt
Matt
June 7, 2016 - Page 8 of 167
Brandess Building DRB16-0139
Final review of an exterior alteration (antenna)
2077 North Frontage Road West/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision
Applicant: Brandess Enterprises, represented by Inte-grat-ed
Gonzalez Residence DRB16-0140
Final review of an addition (interior conversion)
44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Cimadevilla Alejandro Gonzalez, represented by KH Webb Architects
Vail Brewing Co. DRB16-0142
Final review of an exterior alteration (sign)
141 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Vail Brewing Co., represented by Sharon Cohn
Grey Salt DRB16-0143
Final review of an exterior alteration (sign)
141 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1
Applicant: Grey Salt, represented by Stacey Sapp
Lodge at Vail DRB16-0144
Final review of a new sign (The Spice & Tea Exchange)
164 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1 Lodge Subdivision
Applicant: Lodge at Vail represented by Sign Design & Graphics LLC
Marshall Revocable Trust DRB16-0145
Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping)
4494 Streamside Circle Unit A/Lot 13, Bighorn 4th Addition
Applicant: Marshall Revocable Trust, represented by Robert Marshall
Vail Point 31 LLC DRB16-0146
Final review of an exterior alteration (vent)
1881 Lions Ridge Loop Unit 31/1-ot 1, Block 3, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Applicant: Vail Point 31 LLC, represented by Jason Russell
Elliott Living Trust DRB16-0147
Final review of an exterior alteration (vent)
1881 Lions Ridge Loop Unit 13/1-ot 1, Block 3, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Applicant: Elliott Living Trust, represented by Jason Russell
Kennedy Vail LLC & MEHTA Family LLLP Duplex DRB16-0148
Final review of an exterior alteration (roof)
3974 Bighorn Road Units A & B/Lot 4, Gore Creek Park Subdivision
Applicant: Kennedy Vail LLC & MEHTA Family LLLP, represented by Foster Construction
Nocchero Residence DRB16-0149
Final review of an exterior alteration (slider)
595 Vail Valley Drive Unit C208/1-ots A -C, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Tony Nocchiero, represented by Jon Greener
Potato Patch Condominiums DRB16-0150
Final review of an exterior alteration (exterior repairs)
770 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1
Applicant: Potato Patch Condominiums, represented by Vance Carroll
Page 3
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Jonathan
Chris
Jonathan
Jonathan
Matt
Jonathan
Matt
June 7, 2016 - Page 9 of 167
Town of Vail DRB16-0152
Final review of a changes to approved plans (garage)
1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Jonathan
Howard Residence DRB16-0153 Jonathan
Final review of an exterior alteration (roof)
3956 Lupine Drive/Lot 4, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision 1St Addition
Applicant: Helen Howard Retained Interest Trust, represented by Nedbo Construction
Vail Mountain School DRB16-0156 Jonathan
Final review of an exterior alteration (turf field)
3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision
Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Brian Counselman
Breakaway West DRB16-0159 Jonathan
Final review of changes to approved plans (windows, landscaping)
963 Lions Ridge Loop Buildings 100 & 200/1-ot B3, Block B, Lions Ridge Filing 1
Applicant: Breakaway West HOA, represented by Pierce Architects
Meyers Residence DRB16-0165 Jonathan
Final review of an exterior alteration (vent)
1710 Sunburst Drive Unit B8/Lot 1, Sunburst Filing 3
Applicant: Russell Meyers, represented by Lowdermilk-Mitchell Mechanical
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 4
June 7, 2016 - Page 10 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 23, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
Members Present: Brian Gillette, Kirk Hansen, Ludwig Kurz, Henry Pratt (from Item 3
onward), John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar
Absent: John Ryan Lockman
2. A request for an appeal of an administrative decision pursuant to section 12-3-3,
Appeal of Administrative Action, concerning Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation,
and Exclusions, relating to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is calculated in
relation to basements in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-family Residential
(SFR), Two- family Residential (R), and Two-family, Primary Secondary Residential
(PS) Districts. (TC16-0004) - 45 min.
Applicant: Michael Suman
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Action #1: Denial of appeal; The Planning and Environmental Commission hereby finds
that the Community Development Department properly applied the Vail Town Code in its
determination that Section 12-15-3 Vail Town Code concerning basements applies to only
the lowest level of a structure, and that a single two-family residential dwelling is one
structure, and therefore may have only one lowest level.
Motion #1: Kurz Second: None
Action #2: Approval of appeal; Staff did not properly apply the Town Code because they
find that there can only be one lowest level of a structure, which is not true.
Motion #2: Gillette Second: None
Action #3: Approval of appeal; The Vail Town Code was not interpreted and applied
properly in regard to the Community Development Department's determination that
Section 12-15-3 Vail Town Code concerning basements applies to only the lowest level of
a structure, and that a single two-family residential dwelling is one structure, and
therefore must have only one lowest level. The Planning and Environmental Commission
further finds that as currently written, Section 12-15-3 Vail Town Code concerning
basements applies to the lowest levels of each dwelling unit of a two-family residential
dwelling structure, that in a two-family residential dwelling each dwelling shall be
considered a separate structure and therefore may have more than one lowest level if
basements are constructed in each structure on different finished floor elevations.
Motion #3: Hansen Second: Stockmar Vote: 2-3-0 (Fails)
Action #4: Denial of appeal; The Planning and Environmental Commission hereby finds
that the Community Development Department properly applied the Vail Town Code as it is
June 7, 2016 - Page 11 of 167
currently written in its determination that Section 12-15-3 Vail Town Code concerning
basements applies to only the lowest level of a structure, and that a single two-family
residential dwelling is one structure, and therefore may have only one lowest level. In
addition, the current language is ambiguous and needs to be clarified.
Motion #4: Rediker Second: Kurz Vote: 2-3-0 (Fails)
Action #5: Approval of appeal, Town Code was not properly applied by staff
Motion #5: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 3-2-0 (Passes)
Chris Neubecker introduced the appeal, which is a result of a pre -application meeting between
the applicant and staff. Staff finds that the code indicates that only the lowest level of the
entire structure that is below grade can be deducted from the gross residential floor area
(GRFA). The appeal is not specific to one property, but to the general application of the GFRA
standards. The applicant does have standing and their appeal was submitted in a timely
manner. The question at hand is whether the requirements of the Town Code, specifically
Section 12-15-3, were correctly applied in staff's determination that a duplex is one structure
which means that only the area below grade on the lowest level can be deducted, and not two
separate structures that would each be able to deduct their own separate lowest levels as
suggested by the applicant.
Neubecker then referenced a graphic depicting an example of a duplex and how staff applies
the Town Code to basement GRFA deductions, as well as how the applicant believes the
Town Code should be applied.
Stockmar — Asked what criteria were used for the properties that were identified by the
applicant as exceptions to how the criteria were applied.
Neubecker — We believe those cases to be a result of an error by staff.
Gillette — Stated his belief that the intention of the basement GRFA deduction was to allow for
subterranean floor area because it does not affect bulk and mass. Are we defining the lowest
level of a structure correctly? He believes that there could be more than one lowest level of a
structure. He thinks that the definition of lowest level should be any level without any space
below it.
Neubecker — The Town Code states that there can only be one lowest level in a structure, not
multiple lowest levels.
Gillette — Believes we should modify the code to allow for more than one lowest level and
should credit all subterranean space.
Neubecker — There may be a need to reevaluate the definition of lowest level, but we would
need direction from the PEC to modify the definition to reflect the true intent of the deduction
as determined by the PEC.
Ruther — In addition to this appeal, a larger conversation may be needed regarding whether or
not the application of the Town Code is producing the desired results.
Neubecker — Outlined five (5) different options available to the PEC
June 7, 2016 - Page 12 of 167
1. The Community Development Department made the proper determination of the Vail
Town Code, and the code should remain as written.
2. The Community Development Department made the proper determination of the Vail
Town Code, but the code should be modified to more clearly identify that a two-family
dwelling shall be considered a single structure for the purposes of calculating GRFA,
and that the GRFA exclusion applies only to the lowest level of a two-family structure,
even if basements are constructed on different finished floor elevations.
3. The Community Development Department made the proper determination of the Vail
Town Code, but the code should be changed to allow basement GRFA exclusions on
more than one level of a two-family structure, if basements are constructed on different
finished floor elevations.
4. The Community Development Department made an incorrect determination of the Vail
Town Code, and the code should remain as written.
5. The Community Development Department made an incorrect determination of the Vail
Town Code, and the code should be modified to more clearly identify that a two-family
dwelling shall be considered two structures for the purposes of calculating GRFA.
Rediker — Asked for clarification if the decision is solely based on one unique case, or whether
or not the PEC should recommend a text amendment.
Neubecker — Asking the PEC to address this particular appeal and then, if appropriate, make a
recommendation on next steps.
Michael Suman, Appellant, presented his views. While staff has a clear interpretation of how
to apply the criteria, he believes the Town Code is confusing and requires clarification. The
appeal is also based on past precedent of previous approvals of multiple lowest level
deductions, including some of his own previous projects. He believes the intent of the
basement deduction was based on the fact that it should apply in general to subterranean
space. The inconsistency of the interpretation of the Town Code is a direct reflection of a flaw
in the Town Code.
Referencing a packet provided by the applicant, Mr. Suman cited a letter from a previous
Planning and Environmental Commissioner, Bill Pierce, who felt that the basement deduction
should be applied to each unit.
Mr. Suman presented new language that he believes would better reflect the intent of the
basement GRFA deduction. This would encourage better design which allows structures to
step up the hillside. Mr. Suman believes that it is unfair that the owner of the lowest unit of a
duplex is the only one that benefits from the basement GRFA deduction. Mr. Suman believes
the future redevelopment of duplexes will be problematic among future owners because the
downhill unit is the only winner.
Mr. Suman also added that the Town's policy that a floor height differential of six feet (6') or
greater means that there are two (2) separate levels is not established within the Town Code.
Referencing site and floor plans, Mr. Suman described the specific project on which the appeal
is based. Mr. Suman demonstrated that to achieve the same GRFA based on staff's
June 7, 2016 - Page 13 of 167
interpretation of the basement GRFA deduction would require more site disturbance and the
use of retaining walls.
Mr. Suman concluded by stating that option five is most desirable, but option three is also
acceptable.
Mr. Price, owner of the north unit, added that he supports option five because he wants to
redevelop the property to allow for family growth. Mr. Price feels that the current interpretation
of Town Code is unfair to owners and would cause litigation between duplex owners.
Rediker — Asked Michael Suman what sections of the Town Code does he believe indicate that
a duplex should be interpreted as two separate structures instead of one structure.
Suman — Within the GRFA section of Town Code, we calculate the GRFA for each unit in
instances within the Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential District.
Gillette — Stated that the process to find maximum GRFA is to calculate it as a whole and then
the developer can divide the GRFA however they want, or when in the PS
(Primary/Secondary) district, divide it 60% for primary and 40% for secondary.
Suman — Another reason that he applies the GRFA to each unit is because the Town Code
also requires that duplex units be structurally independent.
Gillette — Is afraid that calculating GRFA separately for each unit could become messy. He
believes that instead of focusing the conversation on the definition of structure, the focus
should be on the definition of lowest level.
Rediker opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Hans Berglund, Berglund Architects, stated that one of his projects was one of the projects
referenced as having received approval for GRFA deductions on multiple levels. He believes
that staff's interpretation creates significant issues when there are two (2) separate duplex
owners. He further believes this will cause legal issues for the Town of Vail. In regards to the
six foot (6) separation between levels, he stated that it causes strange designs or discourages
people from redeveloping their property.
Mr. Ron Byrne stated that he agrees with Mr. Ruther's statement and thinks that the current
language of the Town Code should be reevaluated. Mr. Byrne stated that based on his
memory of when the basement GRFA deduction was brought into the Town Code, the purpose
of the deduction was to address issues with excessive mass and bulk above grade and allow
for subterranean space. Mr. Byrne stated that this is an economic issue that could be in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Byrne encouraged the PEC to reexamine the Town Code
by interpreting "structure" and "unit" as two different entities so that they can quickly address
the issue rather than go through a text amendment process.
Mr. Rollie Kjesbo stated that he is not debating staff's determination, but as a member of the
Planning and Environmental Commission at the time of the implementation of the basement
GRFA deduction, the intent was for each unit of a duplex to be eligible for the deduction. Mr.
Kjesbo stated that he also spoke with former Planning and Environmental Commissioners, Bill
Pierce and Doug Cahill, who were also on the PEC at the time of the implementation of the
basement GRFA deduction, and they both agreed that the intent was for both duplex units to
June 7, 2016 - Page 14 of 167
be eligible for the deduction.
Paul Gotthelf stated his belief that there will be serious issues in the real estate community
between individual duplex owners and changing the code would make for a simpler process.
Rediker asked for Commissioner comments.
Stockmar — Stated that he has read the code and admits it is confusing, but believes the Town
Council should advise that the basement GRFA deduction provisions be reevaluated.
Gillette — The reevaluation should include any residential district, not just duplexes. Expressed
his support for option five and reiterated his belief that if floor area does not impact the bulk
and mass, it should be exempted.
Kurz — Agrees with the other Commissioners that the deduction should be reevaluated and
clarified, but believes staff did not misinterpret the Town Code. Kurz recommended the
reevaluation of both GRFA and determination of floor level.
Hansen — Supports option three as he also believes staff has not misinterpreted the Town
Code. He also agrees that duplex owners should be treated equally and that subterranean
space is not a detriment to the community and does not impact bulk and mass.
Rediker — Appreciated public comment and applicant and staff's presentation. It is the job of
staff and the PEC to interpret the Town Code with caution. Agreed that staff did not
misinterpret the Town Code. Any amendment to the Town Code regarding the basement
GRFA deduction should be carefully considered for all of its potential impacts. The PEC is
being asked to vote one specific issue, and is not inclined to vote for a motion that directs staff
to change the Town Code. Though there is agreement that the basement GRFA deduction
should be reevaluated, any change must go through the established process.
Price — Commented during the motion process that he believes that the Town Code was
misinterpreted and that his project should not be held up by further review of the language of
the Town Code.
Rediker — The lack of a consensus indicates the PEC itself also disagrees on how the Town
Code should be interpreted.
Neubecker suggested a simpler motion as to whether or not staff misinterpreted code, without
providing direction on why or what to do next.
Gillette — After a series of motions, Gillette used the white board to draw examples of
structures with basements below grade, and indicating that any basement that has no floor
area below it shall be excluded from the GRFA calculation. He emphasized his belief that all
subterranean space should be exempt from GRFA calculations.
Rediker — Would prefer not to litigate through this one application and favors a full reevaluation
of the Town Code. Emphasized that he feels staff correctly applied the Town Code, and that is
what is being asked in this appeal.
Stockmar — We are not being asked to rule on a specific application, but how Town Code is
applied. The code does not delineate between a unit and a structure. There are semantic
June 7, 2016 - Page 15 of 167
difficulties within the Town Code.
Gillette — Thinks of the question as "if we agree that staff's interpretation furthers the objective
of the Town Code" and believes in this case it does not. Intent was that owners could build if it
did not affect bulk and mass. Asked Ruther for clarification.
Ruther — The issues is "yes or no" on a very specific question. There is a reason why the code
says "lowest level" and not "grades below ground". Reiterated the comments by Rediker and
Stockmar. Reminded the PEC that they can initiate changes to the text of the Town Code. If
the PEC finds that the code is unclear, they may want to provide direction to the staff to clean
up the code.
Ruther — Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with staff's determination, we can
return at the next PEC meeting to have a workshop to discuss the options available moving
forward.
Rediker — Reiterated his belief that we should not be legislating through this application.
Stockmar — Don't want to table the application, but do want to defer it. Staff should look at the
code, and return at the next meeting with a proposal that may address the concerns that have
been raised. Changing "unit" with "structure" changes the semantics of the code.
Ruther — In the ordinance adoption process, the PEC makes a recommendation to the Town
Council. It's possible that changes occur before adoption of an ordinance by the Town Council.
Staff will come back to the PEC at the next meeting to discuss GRFA in more detail. There will
be an option to provide feedback at that time, and discuss the intent of the code.
Rediker — If we want to legislate, we need to do that in the proper fashion.
Gillette — Three board members don't agree that staff's decision meets the intent of the code,
for various reasons. At the next work session we can hash out how to fix the code.
Ruther — As a result of the final approved motion, a structure may have more than one lowest
level within the building, which could be applied to individual units in a multi -structured building.
3. 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 298 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn
Building)/Lots C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC16-0019) - 10 min.
Applicant: Remonov & Co., represented by TAB Associates
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Hansen Vote: 6-0-0
Conditions:
1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application(s) prior to
June 7, 2016 - Page 16 of 167
September 1, 2016.
2. The applicant shall enter into a lease agreement with the Town of Vail for the area
encompassed by the outdoor patio associated with this establishment for the
portion of the patio that encroaches into the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way,
prior to commencing the construction or use of the outdoor patio.
3. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner consistent with the
approved site plan dated 04/15/2016.
4. If at any time the restaurant is not in operation for 7 days or more the outdoor
patio railings shall be stored indoors and if the railings are disassembled at any
time they shall be stored indoors.
Jonathan Spence presented on behalf of the Community Development Department. The
outdoor patio area will be similar to that of Crespelle, located within the same building. The
patio area will serve two functions; one being for stacking of customers at the pick-up window
and the second for use as an outdoor dining area.
Rediker — What conditions can be placed to prevent the applicant from storing their railings
against the building?
Spence — A condition could be added stating that when the restaurant is not in operation that
the railings should be stored indoors.
Rediker — The proposal has been reviewed and approved by emergency services?
Spence— Yes
Rediker — Will the railings be mounted in the same way as the Crespelle location?
Spence — Yes, the railing sleeves are required.
Greg Macik with TAB Associates — No presentation
Hansen — Is the primary driver for the request economic?
Greg Macik — Yes, the purpose is to spur additional sales.
Rediker — If this was a stand alone application, would you still propose the outdoor dining area
without the pick-up window?
Greg Macik — Yes, with or without a pick-up window the outdoor patio would be proposed.
Rediker opened the hearing for public comment. There was none.
Rediker opened the hearing for Commissioner Comment.
Pratt — No specific comment, but is concerned about food being shuttled up and down stairs.
Hansen — Thanked staff for their thoroughness.
June 7, 2016 - Page 17 of 167
Kurz, Gillette, Stockmar, and Rediker agreed with Hansen.
4. A request for review of a Minor Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7,
Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for six (6) square feet
of additional floor area for a concessions window, located at 298 Hanson Ranch
Road (Vista Bahn Building)/Lots C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0018) - 10 min.
Applicant: Remonov & Co., represented by TAB Associates
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve
Motion: Pratt Second: Stockmar Vote: 6-0-0
Conditions:
1. Approval of this minor exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application.
2. The proposed concessions window shall only operate in conjunction with the
approved outdoor patio. The window shall not operate without the outdoor patio
and the patio fencing shall be in place at all times the concessions window is
open to the public.
3. The applicant shall be required to meet the Commercial Linkage obligations at
time of building permit issuance.
A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7B-15 Site Coverage, Vail
Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail
Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum allowable site coverage of 80% to
facilitate a six (6) square foot addition, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista
Bahn
Building)/Lots C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC16-0017) - 10 min.
Applicant: Remonov & Co., represented by TAB Associates
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
Spence- Town Code requires any additional square footage within this district be approved by
the PEC. The existing structure already exceeds the maximum 80% site coverage and is at
approximately 85% site coverage. The addition of six (6) square feet would add approximately
0.13% to the existing site coverage. Staff finds that the requested variance meets the
requirements of the Town Code.
Referencing a picture of the existing storefront, Mr. Spence described the proposed exterior
alterations. Staff finds the alteration and variance to be relatively minor requests.
Gillette — The window will be staffed?
June 7, 2016 - Page 18 of 167
Spence — There will be two (2) employees there.
Gillette — Asked for clarification on the existing site coverage.
Spence — Other buildings in the area also exceed the maximum 80% site coverage. The site
coverage in this area is something that can be examined during the Vail Village Character
Study.
Pratt — Are there any plans for snow melt on the proposed shed roof?
Spence — The roof does not hold snow.
Greg Macik — No presentation
Pratt — Asked for clarification of what will be sold through the grab and go window.
Greg Macik — The idea is that it will be an extension of the restaurant. The food will be served
in ready to go containers.
Rediker — Asked for hours of operation.
Greg Macik — 7 AM to 5 PM.
Hansen — Asked for lighting information.
Greg Macik — An additional light will be added in the interior space.
Rediker asked for public comment. There was none.
Rediker asked for Commissioner Comment.
Stockmar — Three (3) other restaurants have an outdoor patio in the immediate area. He feels
that the proposal would give activity to the area.
Gillette — The site coverage variance does not grant special privilege.
Kurz — This will enhance the experience of guests and does not see any traffic issues with the
proposal.
Hansen — A good addition to the core and some thought should be given to lighting to
demonstrate that the window is open for business.
Pratt — Supports the request, but has a concern over the grab and go function and increased
trash in the area.
Rediker — Generally in favor of the application. It is a unique idea in an underutilized space,
but he has concerns about lines blocking pedestrian circulation. Mr. Rediker is also concerned
on how the variance criteria is applied and that this may establish a precedent for the other
buildings in the area that already exceed the maximum allowable site coverage.
Gillette — What was the purpose of establishing an 80% site coverage?
June 7, 2016 - Page 19 of 167
Spence — More research would be needed as to how 80% was determined
Rediker — In regards to the exterior alteration, are we getting into a Design Review Board
(DRB) issue, but will there be the same number of windows, will they be sliding windows, etc.?
Spence — The proposal will be reviewed by the DRB.
Rediker — Asked for clarification as to how the food service will work
Greg Macik — There is a sliding window and a small ledge on the outside.
Pratt — Asked if other Commissioners thought there should be a time limitation on any approval
so that it can be revisited at a later date to ensure things are operating smoothly?
Spence — The variance or exterior alteration cannot be revisited, but all conditional use permits
can be recalled at any time by the PEC.
6. A request for review of an Exemption Plat pursuant to section 13-12-3, Vail Town
Code, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, to adjust the location of the building
envelope located at 971 Spraddle Creek Road, Lot 8, Spraddle Creek Estates, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0013) - 15 min.
Applicant: Terry T. Noell Trust, represented by Triumph Development
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Action: Approve
Motion: Pratt Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
Condition(s): 1. Applicant shall add a note to the plat stating "Portions of Lot 8 are within
Geologically Sensitive Areas, including steep slopes, rock fall, and debris flow areas, as
determined by the Vail Town Code, Title 12, Chapter 21."
Chris Neubecker presented on behalf of the Community Development Department. Referencing an
exhibit, Neubecker stated that the applicant is proposing to modify the building envelope by
removing a portion of the building envelope on the back end of the property and adding an area of
equal size on the east side of the lot. The area being removed from the envelope is heavily
landscaped while the new area is primarily hardscape and grass. There is no change in the overall
square footage of the envelope. There will be no impact on views. Staff recommends approval.
Pratt — Was there any comment from the neighbor?
Neubecker — No, but there is a letter from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Review Board that
approved the change. The caretaker of the adjacent property did not know of any objections to the
proposal, but the owner did not provide comment.
Gillette — Is the existing hot tub nonconforming?
Neubecker — No.
Kurz — Has staff verified that the areas are equal?
June 7, 2016 - Page 20 of 167
Neubecker — Yes.
The applicant, Mike Foster, did not have a presentation, but stated that he met with all the adjacent
neighbors and one neighbor asked that any new landscaping does not block his views to which Mr.
Foster indicated he would comply.
Rediker — Asked if the design review board for the HOA reviewed the proposal?
Foster — Yes, and it has been approved.
Rediker asked for public comment. There was none.
Rediker asked for Commissioner Comments.
Pratt — If the neighbors have been contacted and are ok with the proposal he is more comfortable
with the request. Mr. Pratt also stated that if the applicant were to change his mind and build up to a
33' tall addition instead of a pool there could be site view issues.
Hansen, Kurz, Gillette, Stockmar, and Rediker concurred.
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation
amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend
Titles 5 and 14, Sections 5-11, 14-10-5, and 14-10-8, to relocate standards related
to roofing material specifications from the Vail Town Code to the Building Code,
and to further align the Vail Town Code with nationally recognized standards for
reducing wildfire home loss, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-
0016) - 30 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action:
Motion: Second: Vote:
Jonathan Spence introduced the project on behalf of the Community Development
Department.
Mark Novak, Fire Chief — Over the past year we have reviewed previous efforts to protect the
Town from wildfire. Last fall we talked to Council and introduced the concept. Fuel breaks are
important. In the past, we have not placed a lot of efforts on defensible space. Council wanted
to make sure the design standards are not in conflict with wildfire mitigation. We now have
better standards to put in place than those adopted in 2007-2008. Paul will talk about why this
is important.
Paul Cada, Fire Department — Provided a presentation on preventing structural ignitability. Vai
is in an ecosystem of low frequency but high intensity fires. Fires do not happen frequently
here, on average every 200 — 400 years. It has been well over 100 years since we had a major
fire. About 80% of wildfires are human caused, that leaves 20% of fires started by nature,
which are harder to prevent.
The entire town is within range that fire embers travel. There could be a fire in Minturn and
have embers fall here in town. 2002 was Colorado's worst fire season and it substantially hurt
June 7, 2016 - Page 21 of 167
the economy. Eagle Wildfire Protection Plan (2004) includes Vail. That plan has specific
recommendations for defensible space. Wildland crew was first hired in 2007. The current
design standards regarding wood roofs were adopted in 2008. Several fuels reduction projects
have been implemented in the town. Last summer we presented to Council on Fire Adaptive
Communities. Fire is a natural part of the ecology. We want to develop strategies that allow us
to recover if there is a fire. Council directed Fire Department to work with other departments to
become a Fire Adaptive Community. We want our design standards to be compatible with Fire
Adaptive Communities. Each year nearly 3,000 structures are destroyed by wildfires. Colorado
has had two (2) major wildfires recently with major structure loss.
Paul Cada - discussed professional research on fire science and studies on how homes catch
fire.
Homes can burn in three (3) different ways: 1.) fire contact; 2.) ember ignition (embers from fire
nearby, or even far away start the home or landscape on fire, and then the structure burns; and
3.) structure to structure fires. In the Waldo Canyon fire, attached fences were the wick to carry
fires from one house to another. In Vail, due to proximity of homes to each other, there is a
possibility for structure to structure fires.
The area from the structure outward to 30 feet has the most impact on determining how fires
spread. Paul discussed Dr. Steve Quarles research and provided images showing the fire
studies. Components of structures susceptible to fires area: 1.) roof (communities with wood
shake roofs are especially vulnerable); 2.) vents; 3.) fences; 4.) siding; and 5.) landscaping.
Paul showed a video of IBHS (Institute for Building and Home Safety) Studies. He discussed
some of the ways that fires start, based on the video. This is a realistic video showing how
embers move. Embers accumulate in the same places that blowing leaves will accumulate.
Cementitious siding withstands fire well.
The town has completed some large scale fuels reductions around town. About 700 structures
still have unrated roofs. New homes since 2008 have Class A assembly. Most homes have
stone and stucco, which are more resistant. We have lots of issues with older homes with
shake siding and A -frames. Most homes have very dense landscaping. Threat of urban
conflagration is high (house to house fire). Heavy landscaping can put homes surrounding a
fire at risk. We want homes to be able to withstand a wildfire without firefighters. We will have
firefighters show up, but it will take a while to have a substantial number of fire fighters on the
fire. During a wildfire, fire fighters need to make a lot of quick decision. There are a number of
sections of the Town Codes that address a number of aspects of fire prevention. Legacy shake
roofs that are unrated are a priority and density of landscaping is another priority.
Four places in code (14-10-5) (14-10-8) (5-11) (10-1-2) that we would like to discuss.
Design standards contain a lot of technical components for wood roofs. They probably should
be in the building code, not in the design standards. We propose to remove the technical
components from the design standards. We would like to address repair and replacement.
Now people repair wood roofs so that they do not need to replace. In tile roofs, there can be
openings where embers can get in. We would like to require stopping materials to prevent
embers getting under tiles.
We want to better define wildfire fuels, and also address all forest pathogens, not just Mountain
Pine Beetle. Also, how can we modify the landscaping standards to better address wildfire
June 7, 2016 - Page 22 of 167
mitigation?
Spence — We should take Item #2 out of the discussion. We want to talk more with the DRB to
have a better understanding of how these changes will have an impact.
Novak — In relation to moving roofing materials into the building code, we have already
discussed this with the Board of Appeals.
Gillette — What have we done with the budget concerning wildfire crews? What has changed in
budget over the years?
Cada- Prior to 2014, we had a seasonal staff. I was hired in 2014 full time to address wildfires,
plus we have some part time staff. Council approved funding for the Intermountain project; 160
acres of treatment. Some trees will be removed this year, and some more next year.
Gillette — How far west does that go?
Cada- From ski area boundary west, almost to Dowd Junction. All the way down to the river.
Gillette — How many acres were treated with the helicopter?
Cada — About 300 acres of treatment. There has been a substantial amount of work. Ski area
has also done a lot of work.
Gillette — How would you rate the fire risk at ski area?
Cada — A lot of fire breaks due to the trails. Wilderness areas north of the highway are harder
to treat.
Gillette — Is that risk low, due to westerly winds?
Cada — Yes, but we can get winds from any direction. Our main concern is within the boundary
of town. The most substantial risk is due to wood roofs. We cannot fireproof our forest.
Negative impacts would be so great on wildlife and water quality. Even if we have a fire outside
of town, it can affect tourism. There could be impacts on water quality from a fire outside of
town. Assessed value of town is in the billions.
Stockmar — A few weeks ago we discussed Vail Village Inn where the rest of the roof is cedar
shake. We faced economic issue of the remaining roof life that was not being replaced. We do
have significant economic impacts to force the replacement of roofs. How long can we expect
for the remaining roofs to disappear?
Cada — Prior to 2008, we had "thou shalt have a shake roof". One of the advantages of shake
roofs is the ability to repair.
Gillette — We should consider a sunset provision for shake roofs.
Spence — Code does not allow you to continue to repair forever.
Gillette — The majority of roof repair do not get a permit. My guess would be that if there is a
roof leak, he calls a roofer, not the town, and the roofer fixes it.
June 7, 2016 - Page 23 of 167
Spence — There are challenges with enacting sunset provisions. We would have to check to
Town Attorney.
Novak — Code allows owners to replace 25% of roof. Some owners try to skirt rules by
replacing 25% each year.
Cada — We currently do not do roof inspections. Embers can get under a barrel style tile roof.
There are challenges with the inspection process that we should consider changing.
Rediker — I am assuming you will be coming back with changes to zoning code and building
code. Does building code come to PEC for revisions?
Ruther — Just zoning code, not building code. We will also bring back changes relating to
landscaping.
Gillette — I used to have to sit down with Martin (Building Official) to review my roof assembly.
Novak - There are methods to use WUI nest on vents. Most important to address are the roofs.
8. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-7-6 Construction Signs, Vail
Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail
Town Code, to allow for a freestanding sign, located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel
B, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0021)
— 15 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther
Planner: Matt Panfil
Action: Approve
Motion: Hansen Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0
Matt Panfil presented the proposed Chamonix signage and the requested variance. There is
not currently a construction fence or any vertical walls on which to attach the construction sign,
as required by Town Code. Staff finds that the proposed sign complies with variance criteria.
Ruther — There is no building or construction fence to which to attach the sign. At such time as
the code can be met, the sign will be relocated.
Pratt — Given that the purpose of the signs is to identify emergency contact information, permit
numbers, etc. This looks like advertising.
Spence — We have had some signs in the past that appeared to be for sales promotion,
including price and other marketing information.
Pratt — I do not have a problem with the freestanding issue, but the sign seems more like
advertising. It is difficult to find the emergency contact information.
Gillette — Does staff see any problems with a private developer doing the same thing?
Panfil — The Town Code specifies what information must be on the sign and what information
June 7, 2016 - Page 24 of 167
may be on the sign, but it does not specify how that information should be presented. There
are no standards for copy size, etc.
Ruther — The reason for the sign is that we have had several phone calls asking what was
being built. The public suggested that we install a sign.
9. Approval of Minutes
May 9, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 4-0-2 (Gillette,
Pratt abstained)
10. Informational Update
PEC Training — Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) - Matt Panfil - 30 min.
Tabled to June 13, 2016 (12:00 PM start)
Rediker — Discussed the KAABOO Music Festival — The event will dominate the use of the park
for the setup, the event, and the take down. This use is not intended for concerts. It is not an
approved use. Nobody has talked to this board and has not yet applied for a Conditional Use
Permit. I believe they need to come to PEC for a Conditional Use Permit.
Stockmar — It is proposed not just for one year, it would be a 15 or 16 year agreement. The
organizers want to make this an annual event.
Pratt — Disagree that this is one use that will dominate the park. That is one zoning use, but
does not apply to an event.
Ruther — Town has held several music events outside of the Ford Amphitheater. We are talking
about a larger event for a longer duration, with longer set up and breakdown times. Turf
recovery may be an issue. Order of magnitude is much larger than smaller concerts we have
held in the past. We will continue to talk with Town Attorney to understand the required
process.
Gillette — It's similar to Go Pro Games. What process do they go through?
Ruther — For larger events, we may write an ordinance to cover the event, example USA Pro
Challenge; World Ski Championships. The ordinance may exempt from some regulations, such
as signage. We do need to ensure that these types of issues are discussed before a final
decision is made. Go Pro does have a multi-year agreement with Town.
Rediker — This is a for-profit event, which is different from the Go Pro Games.
Ruther — The question is, is this the type of event that we would proactively go after?
Stockmar — It is a small Woodstock, the demographic is 40-70 years old.
Ruther — Our issue will be impacts to traffic and pedestrians and the environment, not whether
or not it is the right demographic.
June 7, 2016 - Page 25 of 167
11. Adjournment 5:25 PM
June 7, 2016 - Page 26 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Eagle County School District Board Update
PRESENTER(S): Jason Glass, Eagle County School District Superintendent, Kate Cocchiarella,
President, Tessa Kirchner, Vice President, Marcie Laidman, Red Sandstone Elementary Principal,
Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: None - informational only.
BACKGROUND: Vail Town Council meets periodically with Eagle County School District officials
to review strategic plans, capital projects, and updates related to Red Sandstone Elementary
School.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2016 ECS Bond Red Sandstone PwoerPoint
June 7, 2016 - Page 27 of 167
M
M.�
14
AL
-n.
AN tFk
.VAIIJ
ML�. 6
I Li
%
I SIT.
It.
4 :3
2016 ECS Bond
Red Sandstone Elementary
June 7, 2016
Introductions
ECS 2016 Bond
• ECS Facility Master Plan
• District -wide needs —building and capacity improvements
• Bond Alternatives
Red Sandstone Elementary
• Demographics and School Enrollment
• RSE needs
• Potential improvements at RSE
EWcLE � CHooI
ECS2016 Facilities Master Plan
Seven " guiding principles"
School and facility inventories/needs
assessment
Demographics/enrollment projections
Recommendations
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
Seven Guiding Principles
• Provide a safe, secure, healthy environment for
learning
• The physical environment of schools and facilities
directly affect student achievement
• Support environmental sustainability
• Protect our taxpayer's financial investments
• Provide schools with capacities to accommodate
anticipated growth.
• Equity is a core value
• Foster public communication and engagement that
promotes effective long-term decision-making.
EWc LE � CHo oI
School and Facility Inventories
HN orw 10 to m Kim I I I IUM 10ITIZI 01 go] 01:
a�� a
iii �
Enrollment Projections
• Western end of County is expected to see significant enrollment growth
• Eastern end of County expected to see relatively flat or declining
enrollment
• By 2023 significant capacity shortfalls are expected at EVES, EVMS
and EVHS.
• Minor capacity shortfalls are expected at Red Hill Elementary and
Homestake Peak.
• Aside from schools mentioned above, growth in the district over next 8
years will be accommodated by existing schools.
2023 Forecasted Seat Deficits
Eagle Valley High School -318
Eagle Valley Middle School -91
Eagle Valley Elementary School -157
Red Hill Elementary School -75
EaciE a�Sceaoic
FM P Recommendations
Faci
Needs
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
JVzTffierill i WzTmTeFii'Ci
OAddress Priority 1 Needs
Ito existing buildings �
Address Priority 2 Needs w '
� .-
to existing buildings
Y
}
m InkAm we
PW
New Red Sandstone
r
ementary
New Eagle Valley
ementary
New Eagle Valley Middle
:Q119111,.1111110
FMP Recommend at ions
�-
141r
n
rr ■�
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
M InkAw we
Fir W
istrict Operations Hub
Re -locate 3rd Street
lem School/Pre-K
nhancements
Staff housing
Other District Improvements
• Maloit Park water tank
Valley Road/Gypsum
District offices/east bus barn
District -Wide Fiber
:Q1119111.1110
0 a,? :TkveTN1 i N:TeTe F. 11 r re
Priority 1 and 2 Needs
New Red Sandstone Elementa
New Eagle Valley Elementary
New Eagle Valley Middle
New Red Canyon High West
Eagle Valley High Expansion
Red Canyon High East Expans
Elem School/Pre-K enhancemE
District Operations Hub
District -Wide Fiber
Other District Improvements
Sustainability
Housing
TOTAL
$191,700,0
'PS C[IIIIIIINIIIII1:�i7iTiE..`�1dG
Priority'TaM 2 Needs (50% of Priority 2)
Renovate Red Sandstone Elementary
New Eagle Valley Elementary
New Eagle Valley Middle
New Red Canyon High West
Eagle Valley High Expansion
Red Canyon High East Expansion
Elem School/Pre-K enhancements (50%)
Sustainability (50%)
Other District Improvements
TOTAL $140,000,0
Red Sandstone Elementary
Built in 1972
TOV owns land
2015 Enrollment 222
Functional Capacity 247
Stressed Capacity 260
EACLECoij NnS cool;
Red Sandstone Elementary
Other ECS Elementary Schools - Functional Capacity 436 (average)
Other ECS Elementary Schools - Stressed Capacity 465 (average)
low
School Building
(2.2 Acres)
F �1
Fields
(2-5 ,acres)
Parking and Circulation 1
(2.9 Acres)
School Parcel - 10,E Acm - -
_
June Creek Elementary
ERME TSCeoot;
Red Sandstone Bementary
ECSD School Enrollment and Seat Availability Given Projections - 2023, 2030
Neighborhood School
t*J
�
GQ
W
o'u
CL
�V
LL
yr u
�
i
Xn
�'
iM1 C
OQ
N LL
M 14
� M
�+"1 �Iq i
0ix
r4
V1
N
c
—_
LU
_
� `2
�
Q
N 6L
O<V1
iq
Avon ES
235
443
466
208
231
0
235
208
231
Brush_Creek _ES
396
489
514
93
118
83
479
10
35
Eagle -Valley -ES
537
409
430
128'
107
151
688
x`279
258
Edwards ES
213
459
483
246
270
9
272
237
261
Gypsum ES
283
444
468
161
18.5
100
383
61
85
Homestake PK ES
230
433
510
203
280
111
341
92
169
June _Creek _ES
247
387
4018
140
161
16
763
124
145
Re
Red SandF-tione-ES
172
247
260
75
88
7
179
68
81
Ber
11
Eagle -Valley -MS
470
379
446
91
4)
144
614
235
168
Gypsum Creek MS
412
464
546
52
134
163
525
111
29)
Homestake Peak MS
224
220
258
4
34
80
30
84
46
Battle Mountain HS
927
1169
1375
242-
448
106
1033
136
342
Ea le Valley HS
1286
968
1139
(3-!8)
(147)
3,42
1628
660
789
ER—LE Q-1 SN—OFE
Red Sandstone Bementary
ECSD School Enrollment and Seat Availability Given Projections - 2023, 2030
iMleighbarhnad School
YiF
4w M
U.
M
X15
3
OQ �
i*1 U.
TO
O�I�
fd
� �O<
� �
Lrl
t*1 6►
0-
V1
�
AVoI'7_E
235
443
46fi
0$
231
Q
235
20$
31
Brush_Creek _ES
396
489
514
93
118
88
479
10
35
Eagle -Valley -ES
537
409
430
128'
107
151
ass
79
258
Edwards E
213
459
483
46
270
9
222
x.37
261
sut�r� E
283
444
468
161
18.5
1Q0
83
61
85
Nornestake_PI_E
230
4 33
510
203
280
111
341
2
16
June _Creek _ES�
247
387
408
140
161
16
263
14
145
Red Hill i=
474
45
448
4
6
66
740
315
29
Rid Sand5tQne E
172
247
60
7
�,$
7
179
68
81
-Berg, Creek M
317
466
548
14�
231
20
37
129
X11
Ea le 1lalle
470
79
446
91
24'
144
614
235
168
412
464
546
134
16
SSS
111
2�31
Homestake Peak MS
224
20
258
34
SO
304
84
46
Battle Mountain HS
1968
1375
10{'uy
1360
�34q2�y
y9+�27
�86
y1 q9
76L�
11390
l44;{8
I.�`.1 7)
3+'t �C.
y1 g033
J44t8
6V
4
ER—LE COuN r SN—WE
V7
Red Sandstone Elementary
Building Needs
Classroom size
Lack of group work areas
Mechanical system
Roof system
Windows
Pre -K Playground
Pre -K room
Technology infrastructure
Entry/security
Parking
Gym/stage
No cafeteria
Admin offices
ADA/accessibility
"Behind scenes" improvements
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
Red Sandstone Elementary
2.V
MMW
+/-$11,000,000 allocation to RSE
• All maintenance/upkeep items
• New/secured entry
• Technology
• Gym/stage
• Cafeteria
• Building exterior
• Expand +/-2,000sf (potentially for group work areas)
• Gut/reconfigure most of school:
Enlarge classrooms
Improved partitioning of classrooms
Align school office with entry
-,00' k
{ Next Steps
x
EAGLE Coij NnSceooi
41.
•.s
LIK -- . . --`- . - -
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
End of Presentation
EAcLECoij NnS cool;
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Traffic Impact Fee Discussion
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, Carson Bise, President Tischler Bise Inc.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Input and direction
BACKGROUND: The Town has budgeted this year to update the nexus study in order to
potentially adopt a Vail Traffic I mpact Fee. Tischler Bise, who previously completed the 2009
nexus study will provide a Traffic Impact Fee 101 presentation and lead a discussion to answer
questions about Traffic Impact Fees, process and schedule.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Listen to presentation, ask pertinent questions, and confirm the
desire to move forward with updating the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee nexus study to facilitate adopting
a Traffic Impact Fee in the near future.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo
2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study
2016 TOV Transportation Impact Fee PowerPoint
June 7, 2016 - Page 50 of 167
rowN ofvain
Memorandum
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: 6-7-16
Subject: Traffic Impact Fee
SUMMARY
The purpose of this discussion is to provide an overview of traffic impact fees, and
confirm that the Town Council would like to move forward with a nexus study and
ultimately the codification of a traffic impact fee. A traffic impact fee is a development
fee assessed to offset costs that the town will incur to improve transportation
infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from proposed new developments. The
Town does not have a codified traffic impact fee; the town relies on mitigation fees
through a developer agreement based on codified pedestrian and vehicular mitigation
language required for certain zone districts. In 2009 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 the Town Council.
As a part of the 2016 budget the town has budgeted to update the 2009 traffic nexus
study in order to adopt a traffic impact fee. Tischler Bise will provide an overview of
what a traffic impact fee is and how it can be implemented in Colorado, as well as a
review of the previously proposed 2009 Traffic Impact Fee and will answer any
questions that you may have prior to moving forward with updating the nexus study.
Discussion points will include;
• What is a traffic impact fee?
• Why implement a traffic impact fee?
• What's wrong with what we are implementing through our "mitigation" fee today?
• What methods are used to calculate the traffic impact fee?
• What types of projects can be offset by these fees?
• Can projects being built now, that provide future capacity, be retroactively offset?
(i.e. Underpass)
• Can the Town waive fees for certain types of uses (i.e. Employee housing, Single
Family housing, others...)? If so how is that implemented and effect the fee
amounts for others?
• What are other Colorado communities doing regarding traffic impact fees?
June 7, 2016 - Page 51 of 167
• Do most communities have a fee that increases with construction cost indexes or
inflation or are they constant?
• What is the Schedule and Process be?
II. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail has collected mitigating traffic fees for certain development zone
districts since 1999. The traffic 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, and has not increased since.
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 the 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 the Town Council. The then Town Council did not deem it appropriate to
burden developers with additional fees at that time due to the economic downturn. 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 identified to be funded from the proposed traffic
impact fee for traffic related projects. The 2009 proposed traffic impact fee schedule
was as follows;
Town of Vail Page 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 52 of 167
See Figure 7
Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
MaximumSupportable Transportation Impact Fees
Residential (per housing 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 o r 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
TischlerBise
The 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study has been attached for additional information.
Since the 2009 traffic impact fee was not codified the town has continued to rely on
developer improvement agreements and has kept the mitigation fee at $6500. The last
large development impact fees agreed upon were for The Lion (Lionshead Inn) and the
Marriott Residence Inn (The Roost) developments in 2010, and the Vail Valley Medical
Center in 2015. Each used the 2006 fee of $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicular
trip.
III. NEXT STEPS
With the resurgence in redevelopment, and the town's outdated mitigation fee, it is
prudent to reassess and update the 2009 Tischler Bise Impact Fee Nexus study. The
first step in updating the traffic impact fee is to update the 2009 Transportation Master
Plan, which is currently in progress. This can then be used by Tischler Bise to update
the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus study. The adoption of a traffic impact fee may
effect the Vail Valley Medical Center's Developer Agreement, which currently requires
the traffic mitigation fee for the VVMC to be $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicle
trip unless the Town adopts a new traffic impact fee by Fall 2017.
Town of Vail Page 3
June 7, 2016 -Page 53 of 167
The purpose of today's discussion is to provide an overview of traffic impact fees, and
confirm that Council would like to move forward with a nexus study and ultimately the
codification of a traffic impact fee. If Council would like to move this forward, staff will
bring a proposal and contract to the Council at a future meeting for approval, which will
begin the traffic impact fee nexus study process.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Town staff recommends affirming the decision to move forward with updating the traffic
impact fee nexus study in order to codify a traffic impact fee for Vail.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Tischler Bise Presentation
2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study (unadopted)
Town of Vail Page 4
June 7, 2016 - Page 54 of 167
Transportation Impact Fee Study
August 25, 2009
Prepared By
TischlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Pla nning Comul#ant5
June 7, 2016 - Page 55 of 167
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
June 7, 2016 - Page 56 of 167
■
Tischlefl3ise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
4701 SAINGAMORE ROAD I SUITE S240 I BETHESDA, MD 20816
T. 800.424.4318 I F. 301.320.4860
43460 RIDGE PARK DRIVE I SUITE 20OW I TEMECULA, CA 92590
T: 951.719.8478 1 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.
1
Fiscal Impact Analysis - Impact Fees • Utility Rate Studies • Infrastructure Financing - User Fees • Cost Allocation Plans • Fiscal Software
June 7, 2016 - Page 57 of 167
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 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 58 of 167
Transportation Impact Fee
Figure 1- Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area
Vail, Colorado
TschlerBise
H-1, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 59 of 167
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 1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 60 of 167
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, 000 square feet or
three bedrooms. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with
100, 000 square feet of floor area.
* Current fees in Val 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 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 61 of 167
Jingle Pamity
Multifamily
MW
(Nice
National Average
1$3,077
1 $2,0961
$5,3271
$3,381
Incorporated Areas in
Colorado
Durango$2,169
-7$2,792
$1,298
$3,810
$2,823
Ft. Collins[
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
$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
Pitkin proposed
$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, 000 square feet or
three bedrooms. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with
100, 000 square feet of floor area.
* Current fees in Val 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 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 61 of 167
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 1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 62 of 167
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 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 63 of 167
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 inCore 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 Rooms 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 of floor area in thousands.
(2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan
(1M 2009) and Town staff (08/09).
(3) Trip generation rates arefrom Appendix E
Vail Transportation Master Plan except detached
housing and commercial outside care area. These
are derived from ITE formulas and data.
1,331
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 64 of 167
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
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 65 of 167
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
(1) Costandfunding data from Vail 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 1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 66 of 167
Total
Other Funding
Growth Share
Type
Description
Cast (1)
(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
- Zematt Ln to Simba
Roads in Sec III
RitFrirontage
$3,300,000
$3,300,000
$0
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 tun to MV
Roads in Sec VIII
Roundabout
$2,800,000
$2,800,000
$0
Roads in Sec LX
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 M
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
(1) Costandfunding data from Vail 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 1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 66 of 167
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
1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 67 of 167
Transportation Impact Fee
Figure 6 - Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables
PMPeak Vehicle Trips
-1 .
Inbound
Residential (per Houing Unit)
Minimum I Maximum
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
0.5o
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
3,899
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
5,699
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
Comnercial Outside Core
1.21
Office
0.25
Other Services
0.40
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
Fisca4 Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 68 of 167
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 TransportaBon 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
Mininxum Sq Ftj Maximum Sq Ft
all sizes
all sizes
0
2,099
2,100
2,299
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 Imre
(per room)
Hotel in Core Area
Hotel Outside Core
sidential (per squarefoot offloor area)
Cornrnercial 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
$2036
$4.20
$6.73
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 69 of 167
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 I Projected Percent of
Type DevelopmenterDevelopment Revenue Total
Units (2) r Unit I Impact Fees
Attached Housing
Units in Core Area
1,275
$4,038
$5,148,000
2
Attached Housing
Units Outside Core
878
$5,048
$4,432,000
1
Commercial KSF in
Core Area (1)
389
$9,420
$3,664,000
1
Detached Housing
Units
247
$10,770
$2,660,000
1
Hotel Rooms in Core
Area
598
$4,038
$2,415,000
1
Commercial KSF
Outside Core (1)
83
$20,360
$1,690,000
Other Services
KSF (1)
160
$6,730
$1,077,000
Hotel Rooms Outside
Core
212
$5,048
$4,200
$1,070,000
$227,000
Office KSF (1)
54
TOTAL $22,383,000
(1) KSF= square feet of floor area in thousands.
(2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan
OWU2009) and Town staff (08109).
14
7
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 70 of 167
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
1whlerBEse
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 71 of 167
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
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 72 of 167
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%
Two (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
96
46
2.09
366
87.4%
Total SF3 Sample Data
4,487
2,155
2.081
5,386
60.0
I Data
4,518
2,165
General House 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
* PersonsperHowehold
17
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 73 of 167
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
Type of Housing
Trip
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
Trip Ends
Household
352
0.97
680
0.38
1,032
0.48
(1) Vehicles available by tenure 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 from table 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(persons)-0.34). To fit within the data range of the ITE studies, the number
ofpersons was divided by 2 and the equation result multiplied by 2. For attached housing (ITE 230), fitted curve
equation is (0.17*persms)-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*1N(vehicles)+0.05). To fit within the data range of the ITE
studies, the number ofvehicles available was divided by 3 and the equation result multipliedby 3. For attached housing
(ITE 230), fitted curve equation is (0.21 *vehicles)+36.97.
18 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 74 of 167
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 Recommended
Bedrooms per Persons Trip Vehicles Trip Average House- Trip Ends per Inbound
Detached Unit I Ends 2 Available 1 Ends 3 Dip Ends holds I Household Trips (4)
Three or less 1,3231 320 1,2221 769 5451 5891 0.93 0.46
Four 4791 135 4421 302 2191 1691 1.30 0.64
Five or more 1501 501 1451 1081 791 471 1.68 0.83
Detached Subtota 1,952 5051 1,8091 1,1791 8431 8051 1.05
Attached Subtotal 8171 1 6301 1 1 397
GRAND TOTAL 2,769 2,439 1,202
(1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for Colorado PUMA 00700 (unweighted data for 2005-2007).
(2) 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(petsons)+0.34).
(3) Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formtlas from Trip Generation (ITE 2008). For detached housing (ITE 210),
fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*LN(vebicles)+0.05). To approximate the average number ofvehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles
were divided by 2 and the equation result multiplied by 2.
(4) Recommended inbound trips by bedroomrange are reduced to make inbound trips for a mid-size detached unit, derived f -omACS
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%oftrip ends are inbound.
19 1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 75 of 167
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
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 76 of 167
Transportation Impact Fee
Figure A4 - PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet
Vail, Colorado
Source: Trips by bedroom range Actual Averages
from ACSPUMSdata 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-
090-
0.80-
0.70-
0.60-
0.50-
0.40-
0.30-
.000.900.800.700.600.500.400.30 y = 0.4358Ln(x) - 2.9394
0.20 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
Tri
2,099 or less
0.35
2,100
0.39
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 mare 1
0.87
1whlerBise
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consultants
June 7, 2016 - Page 77 of 167
11
r
13 1ge'!i»g1r
0
0
• T:
1
FI P• Y
IT
G I
T p _ { ,
,'1 u
0 N6
iiL a
AkWAh
f i
T
i�
Or
4
. j
.11 ■ �
�+ i 4 r
r � 1
' ' 1
Lm. re
TischlerBise
FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING
Fiscal impact analyses
Economic impact analysis
Impact fees
Infrastructure financing strategies
Market analyses and feasibility
1•
r •
7, 2016 - Page 79 of 167
Colorado Experience
• Arapahoe County
• Aurora
• Boulder
• Castle Rock
• Castle Pines
• Centennial
• Eaton
• Erie
• Evans
• Fort Collins
• Garfield County
• Johnstown
• Larimer County
• Longmont
• Louisville
• Mead
• Mesa County
• Montezuma County
• Pitkin County
• Pueblo
• Steamboat Springs
• Thornton
• Va i I
• Westminster
&7, 2016 - Page 80 of 167
Legal and Methodology
� One time payments to
fund system
improvements
� Cannot be deposited into
City General Fund
� Basic legal requirements
are need, benefit, and
proportionality
General Methods
• Plan Based
• Cost Recovery
• Incremental Expansion
Demand Infrastructure
Dollars
Units Units
per
per � per X Infrastructure
Development Demand
Unit
Unit Unit
■
Vehide biles Arterial Larne
of Travel per Miles per Vehicle
Oevelopment Miles of Travel
Unit
M7, 2016 - Page 81 of 167
i
•
■
capital cost
per Lane Mile
Fee versus Tax
Taxes
• Primarily revenue -raising
• Authority (usually) must be express
• Proportionality not required
• Requires voter approval in Colorado
Impact Fees
• LU regulations that mitigate off-site impacts
• Authority may be implied
• Does not require voter approval
• "Rational nexus" required
• Does not have TABOR implications
1 2016 - Page 82 of 167
Why Impact Fees?
� Infrastructure capacity is essential to accommodate new
development
• Quality of place is essential to attract/ retain millennials,
boomers, and innovators
�- Minimizes externalities like traffic congestion that is
associated with "no -growth" sentiment
� Compared to negotiated agreements, streamlines
approval process with known costs (predictability)
� Integrates comprehensive planning, economic
development, and revenue strategies
• Balance funding needs against economic competitiveness
2016 - Page 83 of 167
Common Misconceptions
� Impact fees cover the entire cost of new facilities, negating
the need for higher taxes
A "properly" designed fee may come close
• Credits
• How about the O&M costs?
Impact fees should be based on planning standards,
without concern for deficiencies
All developers/builders hate impact fees
Impact fees negatively affect low/moderate income housing
Fees can be waived
Nonresidential fees can be "adjusted" for economic reasons
Impact fees will cause new development to migrate to
adjacent communities
7, 2016 - Page 84 of 167
Eligible Transportation Costs
Roadways, intersections, multi -modal
facilities/improvements required to serve new
development - Yes
Maintenance and repairs — No
Operating costs - No
Excess capacity in existing transportation facilities
— Yes
Improvements required to correct existing
deficiencies— Nu
.0 Jnless there is a funding plan
1 2016 - Page 85 of 167
Evaluate Need for Credits
Site specific
• ueveloper constructs a capital facility included in
fee calculations
Debt service
• Avoid double payment due to existing or future
bonds
Dedicated revenues
Property tax, local option sales tax, gas tax
IL7,2016 - Page 86 of 167
Impact Fees in Colorado
Governed by Senate Bill 15
• October 2001
Improvement or facility that:
• is directly relatea to any service that a local
government is authorized to provide;
• Has a useful life of five years or longer
Specific accounting requirements
Allows for automatic inflation adjustments
Allows a local government to waive an impact fee
on the development of low/moderate income
housing
• uues not address whether the local government is
required to "make up" the difference
2016 - Page 87 of 167
Transportation Fees in Colorado
Regional roads
• tort Collins/Latimer County
Vehicle weight based fees
• Rural counties seeking to offset impact of
extractive industry
Multi -modal improvements
• Boulaer
&7, 2016 - Page 88 of 167
Current Town of Vail Practice
Traffic mitigation fees
• Implemented in 1999 ($5000 per net new PM
peak trip)
• Only applied to certain zoning districts
• Not codified
• Currently $6500 (2006)
Not offsetting all growth -related impacts
• Not calibrated to current needs, nor reflects " state
of the practice"
Can be viewed as a "de facto impact fee"
7, 2016 - Page 89 of 167
Process
Determine existing development base and project
future growth/redevelopment
Determine existing levels of service and capital
needs due to new growth
Determine appropriate indicators of demand
Evaluate methodological alternatives
Evaluate need for credits
Calculate fees
Meetings with stakeholders
Adoption process
M 7, 2016 - Page 90 of 167
New and Innovative Approaches
Progressive residential fee schedules
Impact fees that increase with distance from
urban/suburban areas
Link fees to plans and an overall funding strategy
for infrastructure
City/County cooperation to implement fees
Mobility/Multimodal Fees
7, 2016 - Page 91 of 167
Better Proportionality for
Residential Fees
GarfieIdlEounty,MoIorado
Recommended?
Multipliers
Bedrooms
PersonsGfl) Trip
EndsGf2)
Vehicles Trip
AvailableGfl) EndsGf3)
Average
TripTnds
Housing
UnitsGfl)
TripTndsGper
Housingwnit
Housing
Mix
0-1
2
3
4+
32
114
23
138
126
39
3.2
8%
188
571
162
951
761
119
6.4
26%
457
1,282
398
210316
110799
193
9.3
42%
250
740
227
1,328
1,034
108
9.6
24%
Total
9271
2,7071
8101
4,7331
3,7201
4591
8.1
100%
(1)MmericanXommunity3urvey,TublicHJseMicrodataZ;omplelyorXO[PUMATOOZ201321-Yearanweigh ted[Wata).
(2)MVehiclePtripsR?ndslosedUbnCpersonsMsinggformulaslyromU-ripZ3enerationlITEf2012).YorSingleginit1housinglITEG210),MeO
fittedA3turveA?quationdsTXP(0.91 *LN(persons)+1.52).MToC3-bpproximate2heC3-bverageGpopulationLAnahe3TEatudies loersons3vereO
dividedbyr2MndPtheR?quationDtesultP nnultipliedMy2.
(3)MVehiclertripLtndslasedRbnAtehicles2zvailableHisinggformulasgfromO-ripC3enerationqlTEG2012).[Fot,AinglelinitMousinglITEO
210),IheCfittedDturveg?quationgssPEXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.81).MTogipproximateLlheZverageA7umber2 aehiclesInPtheRTEO
studies, RkehiclesRivailableRvere2lividedFbyBMndPtheA?quation7esultRnultipliecll yU.
2016 - Page 92 of 167
Progressive Residential Demand
�L
~ 2.01]
0.0F?] +-
00
Factors
ActuaiMverages[per3ftWnit
Bedrooms SquareTeet TripEnds
0-1 1,076 3.2
2 1,744 6.4
3 2,115 9.3
4+ 3,2831 9.6
AverageMeekday[N//ehideM-rip[EndsCpel
DwellingMnitOn[Earfield[Eounty,[EOD
yC�M.05171 n (x)0[88.56
RZ[g:M.876690
5000 1,0000 1,5000 2,0000 2,5000 3,0000 3,5001N
SquareTeetIbUivinglArea0
Fitted-CurveMalues
Sq[Ftgiange
TripTnds
900[brless
2.60
901[to[1400
5.28
1401[0[1900
7.12
1901[lo[2400
8.54
2401[brRnore
9.68
AverageNveekday[:&ehicle0
tripInds[ber[housingMnitM
areUJerived [fro m[2013[ACSI]
PUMSMatagPUMA[200).®
U.S.[fensus[Bureaugs3heM
datalgourcellorlbverage0
sq u a releet[by[bed room 0
range.[2Jnit1§izeJor®-1M
bed roomgs3he[bveragelbf0
multifamilylnitsM
constructedUnIhe[west0
Census[Region[3during[2013.®
Unit1§ize[Ior12,1S,1bnd14+0
bed roo msOsllrom[20130
Su rveylbfMonstructionM
microdatallorSingleM
detach edlbndlbttachedlnits0
i n[Th eW o u nta i nMestI7
CensusMivision.ld
2016 - Page 93 of 167
Tiered Transportation Fee
Greeley, CO
i iered road fee based on VMT
• As density and mix of development decreases VMT
increases
• Fees should vary by Traffic Analysis Zone JAZ) based
on Vehicle Miles of Travel
• Geographic service areas determined by $/trip
= 7, 2016 - Page 94 of 167
�IzzemO'greaIFa*To]ar18[0)1aiil[ZTAdlk
W
a.
TischlerBise I www.tischlerbise.com
Next Generation Transportation
Impact Fees
� New emphasis in transportation is moving people and not
cars
� Move away from strictly road capacity to multi -modal
improvements
• Road capacity
• Bike lanes
• Trails
• Transit
Intelligent transportation systems
� Significant national demographic changes
� Sensitive to vehicle- or person -miles traveled
� Vary by location and development type
� Best used with another dedicated funding source(s)
7, 2016 - Page 96 of 167
Think Spatially About
Transportation & Land Use Interaction
Land Use Characteristics
•Density
•Diversity (horizontal and
vertical mixed use)
•Development Scale
People/Household Characteristics
• Demographics (college students, young
professionals and aging boomers)
Transportation and Land Use
Characteristics
•Design (place making and
complete streets)
•Destination Accessibility
(connectivity, urban grid, small
blocks)
•Distance to Transit
Source: TischlerBise graphic based on Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman,
Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments: Six -
Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3):
248-61.
2016 - Page 97 of 167
Progression of Thought
� General paradigm shift from a revenue source (based on
suburban, vehicular travel) to a form of land use
regulation helping to shape development patterns
TischlerBise I www.tischierbise.com '
"pay3ol lay"Revenuelgource
contra ctua11brrangement3oluiI Ornprove ments
drive nlyYgenericJormuIas
drive n[byq)Ians[bndq)oIicy
Iongl#ange3oluildout
fivellollen[N/earCplanning[borizon
onelbndMone
ongoingq)Ianning1bnd[budgeting[process
suburban[locus
applyltransectIoncept
uniform[bcrossqurisdiction
varyleographically
movingN(ehicles
movingCT)eople
vehicle3rips
inbound[VehicleMnileslbfGravel
oneSizellitslbll
residential[byWwellingl�ize
Iooseltost[bnalysis[bnd1generousIredits
specificOmprove mentsNvithlblunding[Mrategy
TischlerBise I www.tischierbise.com '
Example of Service Area Results
On average, urban residential
has fewer vehicles available
and persons per unit, thus
lowering vehicular trip
generation rates
Urban settings provide options
for walking, biking, and transit
travel, thus lowering the
vehicular mode share
Mixed land use, more compact
development, and better jobs -
housing balance reduces
average trip length
Service Area
Urban
Suburban
Vehicles Available per
Housing Unit
1.05
1.70
Persons per Housing Unit
1.98
2.32
Single Units
40%
76%
2+ Units per Structure
60%
24%
Average Weekday Vehicle
Trip Ends per Single Unit
7.02
8.44
Average Weekday Vehicle
Trip Ends per 2+ Unit
4.51
5.70
Autos to Work
74%
90%
Walk/Bike/Bus to Work
26%
10%
Average Vehicle Trip Miles
3.93
5.40
Source: Commission on Local Government
7, 2016 - Page 99 of 167
Sandpoint, Idaho
� Included a progressive fee structure for
residential units that varied the fee by size
of housing unit
� The fee schedule promotes downtown
development with a reduced fee to account.
for existing infrastructure capacity
� Fees structure includes multi -use pathways
to support the City's planning and mobility
objectives
� Extensive coordination with County
7, 2016 - Page 100 of 167
Bozeman, Montana
User friendly fee schedule for nonresidential
development that helps with economic
development efforts
29% reduction in trip generation in
Downtown core as a function of "D"
variables, including: density, diversity,
design, destination accessibility, distance to
transit, demographics, and development
scale
-<�- Extensive public outreach with the City
Council and Advisory Committee
80
70
a
c
60-
5()-
CL
asoa
40 '
�
30-
20-
0
0 200 10
o '
0 20 40 60 80
Predicted Trips (1000s)
Fig. 4. Scatterplot of predicted versus observed external vehicle counts
= 7, 2016 - Page 101 of 167
Questions and Answers
M7,2016 - Page 102 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Pedestrian Safety Enhancements for Frontage Roads and Roundabouts Update
PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall, Director of Public Works
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide feedback to the staff on the information
presented and direct staff to prepare a request for the second budget supplemental request of
2016 from the recommended list of projects.
BACKGROUND: The Town Council, citizens and staff have identified improving pedestrian safety
along the frontage roads in Vail as a priority. Specifically the concerns have dealt with improving
pedestrian safety on the frontage road during overflow parking days.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to include the $410,000 request in the July 2016
supplemental budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Frontage Road Pedestrian Safety Memorandum 060716
June 7, 2016 - Page 103 of 167
rowN ofvain ")
Memorandum
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager; Greg Hall, Director of Public Works and
Transportation; Town of Vail internal team
DATE: June 7, 2016
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Safety Enhancements for Frontage Roads and Roundabouts
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to:
• Provide Town Council an update on work prepared by TOV team
• Propose project schedule
• Request Town Council direction regarding supplementing the budget in July 2016 to make
necessary improvements
II. BACKGROUND
The Town Council, citizens and staff have identified improving pedestrian safety along the frontage
roads of Vail as a priority. Specifically the concerns have dealt with improving pedestrian safety on
the frontage road during overflow parking days. The summer of 2015 experienced 20 overflow
days and this last ski season there were 29 overflow days. Additional concerns were raised
regarding the existing designated crossings of the frontage road and roundabouts. The Town of
Vail staff established a large all-inclusive internal working group representing the police
department, fire department, community development department, as well as risk management,
transit, parking, streets, engineering, landscape architects, public information and participation of
the Town Manger and specific department directors. The purpose was to brainstorm ideas and
issues from all levels of the organization. A complete list of ideas and issues is attached as
background on continuing efforts with regard to pedestrian safety town wide.
III. CURRENT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTIVITIES
The outcome of the planning sessions regarding pedestrian safety resulted in three improvement
approaches. The first will be changes to operations during overflow parking days. This included, an
operations manual being prepared to ensure all team members are accountable for consistency
and improvement of safety. The operations manual will be written to address various levels of
overflow parking intensity. The operations review includes further collaborated planning and
anticipation of potential overflow incidents. One example of an operational change is in the use of
town variable message boards to include the message "Pedestrians Present Speed Limit 25".
The second area of focus is a list of capital projects to be funded over time in making
improvements for pedestrians. A matrix is attached listing various levels of improvements. This
allows for further evaluation and phasing. The most significant initial installation is flashing
crosswalk signs at the major pedestrian crossings of the frontage road and roundabouts as well as
enhanced lighting at these crossings. The use of flashing signs is a shift in direction from past town
June 7, 2016 - Page 104 of 167
councils. Attached is a map of the proposed locations, as well as photos of the proposed signs.
The staff has prioritized the locations with regard to phasing the improvements over two to three
years.
Another initial improvement requires approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
The town has had discussions with Colorado Department of Transportation traffic engineers
regarding the use of variable speed limits when overflow parking exists. In addition to the use of
variable speed limits, the town would implement portable (pole mounted) "your speed is" and
flashing warning signs to educate and warn traffic of the prudent speed during frontage road
overflow parking days. All of these policies and improvements will require CDOT final approval.
Additional staff work is required to address the list of concerns and issues regarding pedestrian
safety throughout town. This work will continue through this year and additional updates to the
Town Council will be provided.
IV. PROJECT BUDGET
The proposed budgets for capital improvements are as follows:
Phase One
Municipal Crosswalk Signs and Lighting: $105,000
W Lionshead Cir Crosswalk Signs and Lighting: $ 65,000
West Vail Mall Crosswalk Signs and Pavement Marking: $ 30,000
Main Vail Roundabouts
• Crosswalk Signs $135,000
West Vail Roundabouts
• Crosswalk Signs $75,000
Total $410,000
Phase Two
Vail Valley Drive Crossing Crosswalk Signs and Lighting $ 65,000
Glen Lyon Office Building Crosswalk Sign and Lighting 75,000
Total $135,000
Future Lighting Phases
Main Vail Roundabouts*
• Enhanced Crossing Lighting $200,000
• Replace Entire Lighting System $625,000
West Vail Roundabouts*
• Enhanced Crossing Lighting $150,000
• Replace Entire Lighting System $525,000
*These projects would be either one or the other and would be coordinated to work with CDOT and
schedule construction when CDOT replaces the interstate ramp lighting over the next five years.
In July, the council will be asked to fund the first phase of the pedestrian safety improvements for
installation this fall totaling $410,000. The staff will request additional funds through the 2107
budget process for the remaining phases. The additional improvements will be requested to be
phased over the next two to three years.
Funding
The staff recommends using Capital and VRA funds when eligible to fund the pedestrian safety
improvements. Staff will also seek possible grant funds from various CDOT funding sources for the
F
June 7, 2016 - Page 105 of 167
outlying years. Construction of the frontage road improvements from the Municipal Building to
Lionshead will also provide a portion of the longer term improvements in this area.
V. ACTION REQUESTED
Provide feedback to the staff on the information presented and direct staff to prepare a request for
the second budget supplemental request of 2016 from the recommended list of projects.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
List of pedestrian and neighborhood traffic and safety issues
Matrix of possible improvements
Map of proposed improvements
3
June 7, 2016 - Page 106 of 167
Meeting Notes Intradepartmental Pedestrian and Frontage Road Meeting
Why should the Town of Vail be concerned with this?
• Sustainable Community
• Walkable Bike Friendly
• Various Livability Designations
• We now have other modes E -bikes
• Cycle/Ped Conflicts
• Ped /Vehicle Conflicts in the Villages and Loading and Delivery
• Congested Pedestrian Roads
• 35 Bike incidents(accidents) over an 8 year period
• Aging Population Accessibility Standards population with many different abilities, young Children
• Frontage Roads and sidewalks at capacity
• Safety during Special Events
• Impression on Guests
• Dark Sky Community Designation
• Liability
What are some specific issues, concerns or solutions
• Central based Lighting Plan
• Top Deck Transportation Center
• Lighting to include better lighting and lighting controls based on circumstances
• Safe pedestrian crosswalks for all including hearing and visually impaired
• Over crowding Set a limit when are we at too much
• Awareness Education Multi -cultural
o Information of where to go as a car/pedestrian /bike enhanced Digital map complete
o Perception verses Reality
• Meeting or exceeding expectations what is more the norm than what is Vail
• Some ideas may be very expensive to implement town wide
• Maintenance of snow free areas (heated) Consistency may be less safe in areas not snow melted even though
cleared
• Model Traffic code 1977 vs 2010
• Education Service
o Hotel Shuttle, Courtesy Cars, Taxi, Limos, Ride Sharing Services (Uber)
o Skier Drop Off
• Lighting beyond bus Stops and Cross walks Seeing Riders at stops and seeing pedestrians at night
• Issues Overflow parking
o Uncontrolled crossings happens
■ E Lionshead circle similar Barriers
o At busiest time most traffic highest rates for guests
o Overflow vs. structure parking
• Frontage Road Sidewalk Median and lighting Plan
June 7, 2016 - Page 107 of 167
o Provide a continuous Frontage Road Sidewalk from Ford Park to Forest Road and eventually to Cascade
with Simba underpass. Sidewalk on the wrong side.
• Cost of improved frontage road with sidewalk both sides verses cost of Structured parking
• At a minimum create an Incident Operations Plan for busy and overflow times
• Lower Speed Limit
• Flashing Lights and Crossings
• Use VMS more with regard to safety message Get users in structures after 3 PM instead of continuing to park of
Frontage road when space is free and available
• Parking operations
o Tools to pre warn, real time traffic Counts
o Additional resources and roles
■ Community Safety Officers
■ Use of Lone Star CDOT
■ traffic control Flaggers Special Events
• 1-70 ramp backup's
• Role of Underpass as a solution in 2017
o impacts of Underpass Construction before completed
• U -Turns in median openings
• Small Interments Ramp Up and Ramp Down operations should be Tiered
• Safety First Should have Triggers Predictable everyone on the same page
• Temp Cross walks Signs
• Dobson Special Event Space, Solaris Special Event
• Look at reroutes of in town bus all the time busing time
• Additional lighting little 4 -way, Dobson, Soccer Field, Roundabouts Crossings
• Dobson not a world class special event venue Regarding entrance staging opportunities to remodel and improve
• Short Term present items for the supplemental budget
• Long term and longer term prepare for 2017 Capital Budget and beyond
• Variable Speed limits Day time and Night time
• Lionshead Parking Expansion which may include a special Event venue outdoor space
• Traffic Calming
• Speed studies in outlying areas , 85% of speed limits on residential roads between 22-26 mph
Team will first address the following
• Work on Frontage Road Parking and other pedestrian issues including the roundabouts
Next will be
• In town route safety improvements
June 7, 2016 - Page 108 of 167
Crosswalk Safety Options
1 Improved Street Lighting
2 Simple Signs/Markings
3 LED Warning Signs
with Audible Warning
4 In -Pavement Lighting
5 Advanced beacon warning
6 Raised Crosswalk
7 Medians
8 HAWK signal
Matrix of Frontage Road Pedestrian Solutions
Muni Bldg
VR
W Vail Mall
MV Roundabouts
WV Roundabouts
exists
exists
+
+
+
exists
exists
+ Painted
exists
exists
Other move bus
stops to
downstream
side of
crosswalk
FR Parking Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Improved Lighting - potential to put on separate lighting control system so could activate only when pkg occurs
Advanced beacon warning
Lionshead-medians to force pedestrians to walk to designated crosswalks
medians would need to be smaller width to allow room for peds to walk b/t traffic and parked cars
or install sidewalk b/t FR and 1-70 (only enough room b/t Vail International and Lion).
significant impacts to snow operations both Town and CDOT (spray from 1-70)
unable to install medians along Village TRC -too many driveways unless you convert to right in/right out movements
Ford Park- improved lighting on separate lighting control system
install sidewalk, would require shifting roadway CL 5-7' south -no more room b/t 1-70 and FR
park along south side and install sidewalk b/t WBFW and bus stop
E/o Ford Park -improved lighting on separate lighting control system
*Install sidewalk along the south side of the FR from WLC to Ford Park and parking only on south side of road —121 parking spaces
simple signs at lower volume legs
LED signs at higher volume legs
June 7, 2016 - Page 109 of 167
4A
I. I
I
*see
! I
Mmglmmm. -4
Y
Ir moor---
?rp
f rr A
/ Ccnm, a
dft■1► rs L
110
�� a� 41Lta
S
ti
inn r _
F
L
�,-
��129
IF Al
Ar
Tue May 31 2016 12:09:02 PM.
June 7, 2016 - Page 111 of 167
low"
' •e
Am
*�k
nanr qij = i)rg� rr
r . ;r,
862
�a
i•� ao-o- rc
Tue May 31 2016 12:19:35 PM.
: IV
I t
vmA -
FFA
June 7, 2016 - Page 112 of 167
1.r /
'j�1tii� r C p • i J.
e � L
C] 1 • � r
Y ' �
a � ~. ►� f f (' r f
�� r f r f� • r� � • � �
'fir ; v � '•' i
' i � mac. ' �•
AF
r� � •,�� r � * ,- �„ fir' t �i '� .
r.' t t
'416 fk
je
a / +
f rtii � a
Yo 14
r
� L ■ r a
dkl
S fidi
•µ' f 1� k4l
{ df
-
# �f
i y
al
■.
Goa,gle earth ny
� r ►"�V �t�Si frJ�
fPatl-
June 7, 2016 - Page 114 of 167
f*,bi
t
rQ�
"��- w1 �hn 7i } 1++'7+x•+ ' S
5
4
ti .k Alt_.-
WE ----
Go Ste earth Feet 400
meters 100
" VIL-fteL Ck'sn J5 June 7, 2016 - Page 115 of 167
4 k
Poe
d9
IF
IV,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
rb
kk
G ,j,gle earth le
mete
Now Lio,
� 100
June 7, 2016 - Page 116 of 167
All
'14 w � • ` r` x,F ��? �_-�.�„T��:- �....�.�-�-J..-,....� - �.._ .—.tvr ... ..
Google earth
r• � i�� F��sT�,,j�,
►�-4-�.c ��tT1NS
100
June 7, 2016 - Page 117 of 167
500
a
- t jr+'i 1
�' ► r
r -
--tit;
{ er
E 117EAQOy+
292 !
His---
w
J
r�
Tue May 31 2016 12:16:43 PM.
iAl
S•
400 5
i ! • �~V
ti
_r ►++r
June 7, 2016 - Page 118 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Town of Vail Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) as an action -oriented
outline of the strategies and actions intended to be used to make critical decisions about next
steps, funding sources, and resource allocation during implementation over the next three to five
years.
PRESENTER(S): Alan Na=aro, Housing Manager
BACKGROUND: The process began with a VLHA Meeting on May 31 st to gain their input on the
Vision, Mission, and preliminary Objectives as an outline for this discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Town Council give concurrence on the process to update the
Housing Strategic Plan and give their input on the Vision, Mission, and Policy Objectives
presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Memo
HSP Presentation
June 7, 2016 - Page 119 of 167
rowN ofvain
Memorandum
To: Vail Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Date: June 7, 2016
Subject: Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
A watershed moment in the history of employee housing in the Town of Vail occurred in 2008.
After decades of continuous growth, the economic and housing boom of the mid 2000's hit its
peak with unbridled growth and investment in Vail from 2005 to 2008. Business was booming,
expensive houses were being built and large development projects were lining up. The
downside to this scenario was that Town resources were stretched to their limits, housing for
residents and employees was difficult, if not near impossible to find, and customer service was
ebbing. Local business owners complained to the Town Council that they couldn't find or keep
adequate numbers of good employees, because of the difficulty in finding places to live. The
uproar over the situation spurred the Town to action.
In 2007 the Town Council passed the Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances,
which are two regulatory tools designed to mitigate the impacts that new development has on
the need for deed -restricted employee housing. Town Council also directed, Community
Development to work with the VLHA and the community to develop an Employee Housing
Strategic Plan (EHSP). The purpose of which was to be a decision-making guide for the
implementation of employee occupied housing programs. The presumptive goal of the EHSP
came out of the 2006 Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future housing goal statement:
"The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes
community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will
provide enough deed restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through
policies, regulations and publicly initiated development."
Two employee housing actions have been identified to achieve the adopted goal.
1. Keep Up — ensure new development and redevelopment provides a requisite amount of
new deed restricted housing to address any incremental increase in employee
generation created by the new development or redevelopment.
2. Catch Up — pursue public initiatives (i.e. town -sponsored) to create new deed restricted
housing to address existing deficits in the deed restricted housing need resulting from
prior development and redevelopment.
Both of these actions have had their limitations. The Keep Up limit of needing only to provide
20% of new employees generated from commercial development or redevelopment and 10% of
June 7, 2016 - Page 120 of 167
new or expanded residential square footage along with the application of these zoning
regulations across "limited portions" of the Town has had very minimal impact on the provision
of employee housing. The actions for Catch Up have been limited by the lack of a dedicated
funding source for housing development.
Even so, there was some progress made immediately following the adoption of these watershed
housing regulatory tools and the plan. Since 2007 there have been 212 Employee Housing
Units (EHUs) established in town with deed restrictions and only approximately 20 deed
restriction releases granted.
A large impediment to the employee housing efforts by the Town occurred post 2010 when the
Recession plummeted property values throughout the valley and economic activity slowed for
the first time in the history of Vail. Some businesses failed, jobs were lost, and houses went into
foreclosure all over Eagle County, except for deed restricted owner -occupied employee housing
in Vail.
II. PURPOSE
Times have changed in recent years and we are back to pre -recession property values and are
experiencing the same kinds of economic growth with the resulting employee housing issues.
Employers again are having difficulty attracting and maintaining a stable workforce. It is time to
revisit the Employee Housing Strategic Plan in light of these changes occurring around us. The
Purpose of this meeting is to begin that process. Staff with VLHA concurrence is presenting an
updated list of Objectives, a new Vision Statement and Mission statement for Town Council to
consider.
Unlike traditional planning documents that present broad and general guidance to a community,
this Town of Vail Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) is an action -oriented outline of the strategies
and actions intended to be used to make critical decisions about next steps, funding sources,
and resource allocation during implementation over the next five years. The HSP is meant to be
used as a decision-making guide for implementation of all housing programs. It is a
compendium of the current and proposed approaches to ensuring that all residents of Vail have
access to quality, sustainable and affordable housing. This strategy is a living document that
can be amended to fit the needs of the community as those needs develop or change. It is
meant to be used as a guide over a three to five-year event horizon for short and longer-term
initiatives to reach the Vision of the Town for creating a sustainable and inclusive community,
while reaffirming that deed restricted employee housing is part of the basic infrastructure
needed to attain it. The HSP will lay out the goals, objectives, specific strategies and a series of
action -steps needed to carry out the housing mission to preserve and provide quality housing
affordable to all, create a sense of community, and provide opportunities for home ownership
and long-term rentals in Vail.
The process began with a VLHA Meeting on May 31 s` to gain their input on the Vision, Mission,
and preliminary Objectives outlined herein. Building upon the work that has gone before, e.g.,
the Chamonix Neighborhood Development Open House, lottery and deed restriction
discussions, as well as the fee in lieu work sessions, zoning review, etc., staff is developing a
draft of the specific strategies and action steps, and potential funding scenarios to include in the
updated Strategic Plan.
A key component of any planning process is community input to ensure that the implementation
of the HSP includes citizen buy -in and builds local ownership. Over the next six weeks, staff
Town of Vail Page 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 121 of 167
working with the VLHA will hold a series of Stakeholder and Public Input Meetings to present
draft elements of the updated strategy and get feedback for any additions or changes needed.
During this intense period of outreach, staff will present the results of this work effort to Council
for review and eventually adoption of the updated HSP.
III. VISION, MISSION, AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVES
VISION:
We envision a diverse, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable community, where any resident,
who desires to live and work in Vail, can find quality, well-built, and energy efficient
housing.
MISSION:
Our mission is to preserve and provide quality housing affordable to all, helping to create a
sense of community by providing opportunity to foster change in the dynamics of home
ownership and long-term rental housing in Vail.
OBJECTIVES:
OBJECTIVE 1: Preserve and Increase Employee and Full-time Resident Housing
This objective is of paramount importance, because we continue to lose employee
housing units, long-term rental units, and for -sale units to VRBO or second home owners
at a rate much faster than we could ever build replacements.
OBJECTIVE 2: Being open to all density options
This objective is important, because land is in limited supply in town. It is, therefore,
critical that all development and redevelopment opportunities be productive, while
maintaining quality and sustainability standards.
OBJECTIVE 3: Develop dedicated housing funding source
This objective is important, because as pointed out above Catch up actions have been
limited by the lack of a dedicated funding source for housing development and buy -
downs of existing units. Examples of sources include: reallocation of a portion of RETT,
Increase property tax on units over certain size, increase fees on VRBOs, dedicated
sales tax, etc.
OBJECTIVE 4: Actively Seek and Participate in Public/Private Partnerships
This objective is important, because each entity can do things that the other can not.
Town of Vail Page 3
June 7, 2016 - Page 122 of 167
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN OUTLINE
a INTRODUCTION (with Problem
Statement to be added after we hold our
Housing Stakeholder and General Public
input sessions.)
o VISION & MISSION (see below)
a GUIDING PRINCIPLES (housing as
infrastructure,, promote community, more
full-time residents living in town)
a PLANNING BACKGROUND (A.
Existing planning documents, B. Town
Values) _ A
L_
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN OUTLINE
o POLICY OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND
ACTION STEPS (SeePolicy Objectives below,
Strategies and Action Steps to be added after community
input)
o IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX (Update existing
matrix from 2008 EHSP with additional actions from this
updated HSP)
o FUNDING (Identify sources and approaches)
o REPORTING (Tie Policy Objectives, Strategies, and
Action Steps to quantifiable benchmarks and report
annually on achievements)
w
o ESSENTIAL NEXT STEPS (Identify immediate
actions needed to get program on "road to success")
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
VISION
We envision a diverse, inclusive,
vibrant and sustainable community,
` where any resident, who desires to
live and work in Vail, can find quality,
well-built, and energy efficient homes.
P,
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
MISSION
Our mission is to preserve and
provide quality homes affordable to
all, thereby creating a sense of
community by providing
opportunities to foster change in the
dynamics of home ownership and
long-term rental he
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
POLICY OBJECTIVES:
E OBJECTIVE 1: Preserve and
Increase Employee and Full-time
Resident Housing
� This objective is of paramount
importance, because we continue to lose
_W
employee housing units, long-term rental
units, and for -sale units to VRBO or
second home owners at a rate much faster
than we could ever build replacements.
We must focus on - ''
housing stock.
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
L
Y OBJECTIVES:
o OBJECTIVE 2: Being open to all
density options
This objective is important, because
land is in limited supply in town. It is,
therefore, critical that all development
and redevelopment opportunities be
productive, while maintaining quality
and sustainabili
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
standards.
I�CY OBJECTIVES:
a OBJECTIVE 3: Develop dedicated
housing funding source
0
This objective is important, because as
pointed out above Catch up actions have
been limited by the lack of a dedicated
funding source for housing development and
buy -downs of existing units. Examples of
sources include: reallocation of a portion of
RETT, Increase property tax on units over
certain size, increase fees c
dedicated sales tax, etc.
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
LICY OBJECTIVES:
a OBJECTIVE 4: Actively Seek and
Nk Participate in Public/Private
Partnerships
■ This objective is important, because
6.
each entity can do things that the other
can not.
Town of Vail I Community Development 1 6/ 7/16
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Local (Liquor) Licensing Authority Interviews (VLLA)
PRESENTER(S): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Interview two applicants.
BACKGROUND: There are five members who serve on the Vail Local Licensing Authority as
appointed by the Vail Town Council. There are two members' terms which expire June 2016 so
new appointments must be made. The Authority considers and approves new liquor licenses,
renewals and transfers of liquor licenses as well as special event liquor permits.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Vail Local Licensing Authority Interviews Memorandum
June 7, 2016 - Page 131 of 167
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Town Council
From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Date: June 7, 2016
Subject: Interview and appointments to Vail Local (Liquor) Licensing Authority (VLLA)
I. SUMMARY
The Town Council will have an opportunity to interview and make appointments to the
Vail Local (Liquor) Licensing Authority (VLLA) during the June 7t" afternoon and
evening meeting.
The public notice was posted in the Vail Daily and the Town's website for two
vacancies on the VLLA with interviews to be conducted May 17 and June 7. There
have been three letters of interest received by the deadline from the following
residents, 1) Craig Arseneau, 2) Michael Hannigan, and 3) Hermann Stauffer.
Interviews will be conducted with Mr. Hannigan and Mr. Staufer next Tuesday. The
Council is asked to make final appointments during the evening meeting on June 7.
II. BACKGROUND
There are five members appointed by Town Council to serve on the Vail Local (Liquor)
Licensing Authority. The VLLA is established pursuant to the provisions of Colorado
Revised Statutes section 12-46-103(4), section 12-47-103(9), and the Town Charter
section 8.6, and is a commission which oversees the licensing of locations within the
Town to sell alcoholic liquors and fermented malt beverages and for the local
administration of the Liquor Code of 1935 and the Fermented Malt Beverages Act in
accordance with said statutes. Those serving must be citizens of the United States,
qualified electors of the Town of Vail, and have resided in the Town of Vail for not less
than two years preceding appointment, and shall have no direct financial interest in any
license to sell alcoholic beverages or any location having any such license. All three
parties meet the criteria.
Two members reach the end of their term June 2016 and include Mr. Arseneau and
Mr. Hannigan, both seeking reappointment. Other current members include Amanda
Zinn, Ted Steers, and Luca Bruno, whose terms end 2018. The VLLA meets the
second Wednesday of each month and considers new liquor licenses, renewals,
transfers and special event liquor permits. Note both applicants have not missed any
meetings this past year. Letters of interest are attached.
III. ACTION REQUESTED
Make appointments to VLLA during the evening meeting.
June 7, 2016 - Page 132 of 167
Patty McKenny
From: Craig Arseneau <craig@vailcoffee.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Patty McKenny; Tammy Nagel
Subject: Letter for the Liquor Board
Subject: Liquor Board
Att: Patty McKenny
Town Clerk
Town of Vail
Dear Patty,
April 14, 2016
Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Local Licensing Authority for the past 2 years, its has been a
wonderful experience. That said, I would like to extend my services on the board for another 2 year term.
I have owned and operated businesses in the Vail Valley for over 26 years ; Co—founding partner for The Daily
Grind Coffeehouse in Vail Village / Co founding partner for Vail Mountain Coffee & Tea Co in
Minturn. While operating The Daily Grind in the Vail Village, we incorporated a successful wine bar concept
in the early 90's (thus obtaining a liquor license) and so I am familiar with the Liquor Board licensing
procedures within the Town of Vail district. I feel my resume would be a valuable asset to the Liquor Board.
I have lived in the Vail Valley for 26 years and currently reside in East Vail with my wife and 8 year old
daughter, who attends Stone Creek Charter School. Side bar, I was recently appointed (October 2015) to the
Board of Director's at Stone Creek Charter School for a 2 year term.
Please consider my application for the Town of Vail Local Licensing Authority.
Regards,
Craig Arseneau
President
Vail Mountain Coffee & Tea Co.
Po Bo: 549, 23698 US Hwy 24, Minturn, Co 81645. Tel: (970) 827-4008 Fax: (970) 827-9265 w .vnilcoffee.com
June 7, 2016 - Page 133 of 167
Patty McKenny
From: Tammy Nagel
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:12 AM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: FW: Local Licensing Authority Seat
From: michael hannigan[mailto:michaelhanniganl3(&hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:21 PM
To: Tammy Nagel
Subject: Local Licensing Authority Seat
Hello Tammy,
I am writing this letter to let you, and the Vail Town Council, know that I am very interested in retaining my
chair on the Vail Liquor Board. I hope that my attendance & participation during board meetings merits
another term. Being a bartender in Vail for almost 22 years, I feel as if I bring a level view of the issues that are
on hand during these meetings. Working with the Liquor Board members and even some of the other Boards
on the issues that face this town, that are alcohol related, has been a pleasure. It's great to see the people that
love this town working together to achieve a common goal. I'm not sure if I will be in Town during the Liquor
Board seat interviews on May 17th, but I hope this letter proves my intent to serve another term to the best
of my abilities. Thank you for your consideration & look forward to working with you in the future.
Michael Hannigan
1768 Alpine Dr. #1
Vail, CO 81657
June 7, 2016 - Page 134 of 167
Patty McKenny
From: Hermann Staufer <hsstaufer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:16 PM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: Fwd: Re. Local licensing authority
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hermann Staufer <hsstaufer@gmail.com>
Date: April 20, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM MDT
To: Hermann Staufer <hsstaufer(a�gmail.com>
Subject: Re. Local licensing authority
To Patty McKenny.
My name is Hermann Staufer and I am interested to serve as a member on the
Local Licensing Authority, I am sorry I can not be in town to be interviewed on May 17th as I
will be on a cruise to Bermuda.
Yours sincerely, Hermann Staufer.
Sent from my iPad
June 7, 2016 - Page 135 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: April 2016 Sales Tax Update
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
April 2016 Sales Tax Memorandum
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 136 of 167
MEMORANDUM
May 26, 2016
To: Vail Town Council
Stan Zemler
Kathleen Halloran
From: Sally Lorton
Re: April Sales Tax
Vail will collect an estimated $45,000 in additional April sales tax to bring
collections to $1,082,601. April would be down 21.0% or $288,328 from April
2015 and down 19.3% or $258,709 from budget. Year to date would be up .3%
or $36,020 from 2015 and down 1.4% or $182,227 from budget. The ski season
would be up .8% or $138,529 from the 14/15 ski season.
June 7, 2016 - Page 137 of 167
Month
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town of Vail
Sales Tax Worksheet
5/26/2016
2011 2012 2013
2014
2015
Budget
% Change % Change
2016 Budget from from
Collections Variance 2015 Budget
January
2,275,967
2,597,985
2,783,306
2,976,655
2,619,673
2,564,383
2,795,688
2,855,524
3,145,620
3,483,245
3,696,798
3,722,428
3,734,303 11,875 1.01% 0.32%
February
2,429,377
2,527,130
2,718,643
3,071,615
2,588,889
2,577,360
2,803,136
2,994,580
3,267,351
3,477,419
3,593,947
3,727,134
3,741,949 14,815 4.12% 0.40%
March
2,785,101
2,852,954
2,986,446
3,327,304
2,504,567
2,685,004
3,143,418
3,185,859
3,650,157
3,788,185
4,053,961
4,143,010
4,192,802 49,792 3.42% 1.20%
April
915,554
1,280,324
1,330,740
1,098,918
1,235,941
1,156,934
1,191,690
1,183,087
1,069,186
1,280,641
1,370,929
1,341,310
1,037,601 (303,709) -24.31% -22.64%
Total
8,405,999
9,258,393
9,819,135
10,474,492
8,949,070
8,983,681
9,933,932
10,219,050
11,132,314
12,029,490
12,715,635
12,933,882
12,706,655 -227,227 -0.07% -1.76%
May
458,770
449,283
545,874
622,103
516,150
421,925
473,292
487,739
563,602
607,729
584,454
632,924
June
834,913
805,362
953,017
918,061
717,233
873,765
895,951
963,143
1,023,801
1,153,247
1,242,400
1,232,687
July
1,166,183
1,255,243
1,265,781
1,397,842
1,121,860
1,228,767
1,481,329
1,573,499
1,654,161
1,829,102
1,937,989
1,954,345
August
993,985
1,055,614
1,162,746
1,349,795
1,068,391
1,147,352
1,310,471
1,380,710
1,507,048
1,674,813
1,702,579
1,760,820
September
795,807
832,549
908,318
834,569
753,754
761,425
889,945
978,037
994,135
1,054,015
1,240,277
1,184,930
October
566,173
614,396
688,519
662,767
581,033
594,362
623,420
644,577
755,133
752,295
835,649
843,227
November
713,117
799,582
747,877
719,109
651,873
701,075
788,430
825,873
947,627
962,344
997,100
1,046,566
December
2,549,032
2,771,258
2,821,871
2,652,628
2,553,974
2,963,763
3,184,645
2,973,826
3,422,178
3,818,096
3,885,849
3,998,619
Total
16,483,979
17,841,680
18,913,138
19,631,366
16,913,338
17,676,115
19,581,415 20,046,454
21,999,999
23,881,131
25,141,932
25,588,000
June 7, 2016 - Page 138 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: CSE DRAFT June 1, 2016 Meeting Minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CSE DRAFT June 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 139 of 167
TOWN OF VAIL
Commission on
D RArmT
Special Events COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS MEETING
and
Joint Meeting with Vail Local Marketing Advisory Council
Vail Town Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 1, 2016 @ 8:30am
CSE Members Present: Barry Davis
Mark Christie
Kim Newbury Rediker
Shenna Richardson
Alison Wadey- departed at 11:03
CSE Members Absent: Mark Gordon
Marco Valenti
Town of Vail Staff Present: Sybill Navas, CSE Coordinator
Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager
Laura Waniuk, Event Marketing Liaison
Others Present: Ainslie Fortune, Cactus
Skip Thurnauer, VLMDAC
Jessie Klehfoth, VLMDAC
Laurie Mullen, VLMDAC
Mike Imhof, Vail Valley Foundation
Missy Johnson, Highline
Brooke Skjonsby, Vail Resorts
Amanda Zinn, AIPP
Stephen Connolly
Cheryl Jensen, Vail Veterans Program
Angela Mueller, Taste of Vail
AGENDA:
Meeting materials can be accessed after May 27th at the following link:
httD://65.38.144.10/WebLink/0/fol/346300/Row1.asax
CSE Chair, Barry Davis, called the meeting to order at 8:40 am
CSE Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 1 of 5
June 7, 2016 - Page 140 of 167
Joint Meeting with Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Committee (VLMDAC):
Development of revised RFP criteria based on revised Town Council
Mission and Vision
Navas stated that the Town Council agreed that the RFP was on the right track.
The Town Council did ask about an event recruitment strategy and how would
the CSE bring new events to town. Davis said that it will be important to make
some bold choices during the RFP process to free up some dollars and calendar
time. Navas stated the budget will most likely stay the same as last year without
the additional funds from the closing weekend with Spring Back to Vail. Last year
the overall budget increase was set at 3%. The town's budget increase for 2017
has not yet been determined. At times the CSE has requested additional funds
outside of their budget from the Town Council, for example, the Bluegrass
Concert Series.
Event Recruitment Strategy Discussion: What should the CSE's role be?
Thurnauer asked about the type of event the CSE is looking for, iconic events or
destination events. Mullen said she realized that it's difficult for the CSE to bring
iconic events such as a Bravo! Vail to town. Davis asked if it's easier to bring in
an iconic event or grow an existing event. Navas mentioned that the Mountain
Games, Spring Back to Vail and Gourmet on Gore were all homegrown events
and have developed successfully. She continued that the Outlier Offroad
Mountain Bike Festival has potential to grow. McDonald stated that through the
VLMDAC, sports tournaments have been brought in through group sales and the
Vail Valley Partnership. Navas said that the baseball tournament is one of those
tournaments and the Bundesliga event is poised to grow in 2017, both taking
place in mid-July. Wadey asked what the board could do to make the town more
appealing to producers to place their events in other need times. Thurnauer said
there is not a lot of capacity on weekends left in the year, and the goal of the
VLMDAC is to fill in the mid -week stay. McDonald said that when the CSE took
over the Education and Enrichment events, that provided an opportunity to host
programs during the week. Rediker said that it's easier for kids' sports
tournaments to occur during July because the kids are out of school. If the events
are held in September, then they would have to be held on weekends. Navas
stated that September is a great example where some weekends are double and
triple loaded with events and maybe there is an opportunity to move some of
those events. Richardson stated that October 2015 was very busy in Vail Village.
Davis asked if it would be valuable to have a conversation with the VRD about
booking the fields and capacity in town. There may be an opportunity to create
space for other events. Mullen said that it is a good idea to extend events an
extra day as that small step increases occupancy by 13%.
Cactus Presentation of VLMD Creative for 2016
Please see presentation for strategy, tactics and execution details.
CSE Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 2 of 5
June 7, 2016 - Page 141 of 167
Regular CSE Monthly Meeting:
Administrative Items
Approval of the Minutes of the CSE Regular Meeting on May 4, 2016
➢ Motion to approve the minutes of the CSE Meeting, May 4, 2016 as
presented.
M/S/P: Christie/Rediker/Unanimous The motion passed 5-0
Review Financials: Refer to spreadsheet: no issues were raised.
Event Recaps: *motion to release final funding disbursement required
Taste of Vail*
Mueller said thank you for the funding support; as a non-profit it's really key to
the success of the event. Taste of Vail was started to fill a need weekend and
this year that didn't happen due to the extension of ski season. They exceeded
expectations for Debut of Rose, and were successful holding it indoors. They
plan to hold it indoors for next year's event as well. Taste of Vail will continue to
hire Walking Mountains for future recycling programs. Navas noted that the Taste
of Vail was recognized with the town's Celebrate Green! Award for their efforts in
implementing sustainable event practices. Mueller continued, stating that they
still need help with sponsorship. Wadey said that she thinks there is a better way
to handle sponsorship, perhaps on an annual basis from one main point of
contact. Taste of Vail is trying to attract a younger crowd and the percentage
increases every year. Their social media presence is growing. Media placement
was very strong; over 18 media representatives attended the event. Mueller
provided feedback on the event RFP process. She said the RFP process is easy
if you have help from PR and marketing, they can assist with completing it. Davis
asked Mueller to review the RFP and point out where it's challenging to
complete. Richardson asked about the RRC survey program and Mueller said
RRC didn't offer to send a survey to attendees and they only covered one event,
the Lamb Cook off. Mueller's suggestion was to have RRC send a survey after
the event. Wadey said it might be good to switch up the survey to a different
event in 2017, or to use the post -event email option.
Vail Veterans Program*
Jensen said thank you for the support. The community and the program have
had a profound effect on the lives of veterans, and that the Vail program is
recognized as "the gold standard" throughout Veterans Hospital networks. They
hosted two incredibly successful events this last winter and the CSE's funding
went to pay lodging and meal costs. In 2017 there will be an additional day
added to each program, as requested by the attendees. Vail Veterans Program
also pays for the ski lessons; Vail Resorts provides free lift tickets. They are the
only adaptive program to fund the experience for the entire family. The Vail
Veterans program will be expanding outside the area to Florida with a new
CSE Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 3 of 5
June 7, 2016 - Page 142 of 167
program and the support of Johnson & Johnson. They also have signed
American Airlines as a sponsor. Jensen stated that the Vail Veterans Programs
have a lasting effect on both the town and on the participants, and that in spite of
the expansion of their programs and their national recognition, they "will never
change the name". Cheryl's feedback on the RFP process is that their event
doesn't necessarily fit into the standard event type. Rediker stated that it's great
that the program is willing to cover the costs of lodging and meals and that the
local businesses really appreciate it.
➢ Motion to approve the final funding distribution of $10,000 for Taste of Vail,
and $6,000 for the Vail Veteran's Program.
M/S/P: Rediker/Christie/Unanimous The motion passed 5-0
Review CSE Work Plan
Please see CSE Work Plan for details. Navas said that the CSE would need to
start considering an update to their strategic plan in February 2017. Wadey
mentioned that there needs to be more discussion about group business.
McDonald stated that it would be good for the Vail Valley Partnership to come in
and discuss their group business strategies for both categories of events.
McDonald said that some of the event producers hold brand meetings prior to
their event, which also brings in group business. Wadey asked about the section
of the work plan that stated, "Continue communications between the CSE and
the VEAC at a higher level". McDonald said that the CSE could have the similar
conversation with the VEAC that they did with the VLMDAC today. In addition,
the event sponsorship conversation could be held with the VEAC. Wadey asked
if there was a way to create a "cheat sheet" to send to businesses explaining the
sponsorship levels so the businesses can be proactive. Navas asked the CSE to
consider adding in a request in the RFP asking for the event's sponsorship deck.
McDonald said that the staff could create a spreadsheet that incorporates
information about the event and their target audience to disseminate to local
businesses. Rediker asked about information regarding environmental issues
and sustainability to be added to the work plan. It was recommended by the CSE
to add an additional question in the RFP to address the event producer's plan for
commitment to environmental sustainability and what steps will be taken.
Sustainable event practices are also addressed by the Green Events Checklist
requirements that are part of the Town of Vail's special event permitting process.
➢ Motion to approve the 2016 CSE Work Plan as presented.
M/S/P: Christie/Richardson/Unanimous The motion passed 5-0
Competitive Resort Event Schedules
Please see competitive events spreadsheet. Rediker asked to add Frisco to the
Breckenridge section and Wadey asked to add the Hamptons or Nantucket to
provide East -coast comparisons.
CSE Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 4 of 5
June 7, 2016 - Page 143 of 167
KAABOO- CSE to provide specific comments
Imhof presented an overview about KAABOO to the CSE. The Vail Valley
Foundation (VVF) has agreed to extend their deadline to July 19 for a final
decision on the event by the Vail Town Council. The VVF decided to move the
event activation out of the lower bench of Ford Park to Golden Peak based on
feedback from involved parties. There have been and will be multiple
opportunities for public comment, such as the VRD Board Meeting, VEAC,
VLMDAC, Town Council and Town Hall public forums. Imhof stated that the
protection of the playing fields remains paramount. Navas commented that they
have cut back on the use time of the park and that's a positive change. Imhof
said that they have simplified the layout and schedule of construction and load in
of the event. Navas asked about road closures and Imhof stated that there are
multiple types of traffic: emergency and normal traffic. He said emergency
access has to remain critical. There would be traffic management for KAABOO.
Richardson stated that she is in favor of KAABOO, it is creative and everything
that the CSE has been looking for. Wadey thinks that there is a way to address
the concerns and solve them for this event. Davis stated that the CSE is
interested in this event as a board. Wadey stated that the due diligence needs to
be done prior to approval for this event. Rediker explained that different boards
look at this event in different ways. She said that there is impact on the fields and
tennis courts and that there are constituents who are paying taxes to use those
facilities for recreation. Rediker stated that the most important thing is that the
VVF was open to extending the decision period and open it up for public
comment. Christie asked about the turnout for the public forums, Imhof said the
morning session was better attended than the afternoon session on May 26t"
They will hold future forums in the late afternoon from 4-6pm to allow for more
people to attend after work. Imhof stated that the target demographic for this
event is different from the typical music festival based on ticket price and the type
of experience that audience expects. Rediker asked if there is a video of
KAABOO from Del Mar to show an example of who attends and what type of
event it is.
New Business and Community Input
N/A
➢ Motion to Adjourn at 11:14am
M/S/P: Rediker/Christie/Unanimous The motion passed 4-0 (Wadey absent)
Next CSE Meeting:
Wednesday, July 6, 2016 @ 8:30am
Vail Town Council Chambers
CSE Minutes June 1, 2016 Page 5 of 5
June 7, 2016 - Page 144 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Committee Follow -Up Memorandum from
May 17, 2016 VLMD meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Destination Marketing Strategy Results
June 7, 2016 - Page 145 of 167
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject
Vail Town Council
VLMDAC
May 31, 2016
Destination Marketing Strategy Results
BACKGROUND
The VLMDAC's strategy to allocate marketing dollars towards increasing our Destination Markets is
driven by data indicating that these markets are growing as part of our overall mix. The Destination visitor
tends to spend additional days/nights in Vail, when compared to the Front Range visitor. Additional
days/night spent directly translate to an increase in our overall sales tax. Outlined below are Key
Performance Indicators supporting this strategy.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/RESULTS
Visitor Mix
Since 2014, the summer visitor mix of Destination guests has increased from 55% to 58%. In addition,
Texas, specifically, has seen growth from 19% to 23%.
Sales Tax Collections
In 2015, the Town of Vail experienced sales tax collections increase 7.2% over 2014 from May — October.
This can be directly attributed to the increase in Destination visitors.
Destimetrics Destination Reservations 2014 vs. 2015 (stays at least 3 nights, May — October)
June 7, 2016 - Page 146 of 167
2014
2015
% Increase
Destination Guests
1604
3302
51%
Illinois
141
533
73%
Texas
489
898
46%
California
404
495
18%
June 7, 2016 - Page 146 of 167
Website Visitation
Year over year website visitation on vail.com from 2014 to 2015 can be found below.
Total Destination:
Visitation: -4.6%
Dallas:
Visitation: +28.1%
Houston:
Visitation: -1.7%
Chicago:
Visitation: +4%
VBCR Bookings
Just looking at data from Vail Central Reservations for Destination guests, we can report the following
increases from 2014 to 2015:
Total Destination:
Reservations: +17%
Room Nights: +25%
Revenue: +42%
Digital Display Performance
While, Denver is the top DMA for site visits and shopping cart entries on Vail.com, Chicago, Dallas and
Houston have consistently been in the top 5 DMA's following Denver.
Video completion rates in Chicago/Dallas/Houston were higher in 2014 than the national rate and other
Destination markets at 77-78%. This would indicate that these guests are a more engaged audience.
With additional dollars being allocated to support the VLMDAC's strategy to further grow Destination
Markets (with an emphasis on Texas, Chicago, and Los Angeles), we will continue to monitor these KPI's
and results to ensure that we are achieving a solid return on our investment.
Town of Vail Page 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 147 of 167
Assocblon of Chamber of Commerce Exec Owes
2015 Chamber
1�of
Va UWU the Year
PO? IRT-ffR57i{0P' FINALIST
To: Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council
From: Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership
Re: April 2016 group sales dashboard
Key Performance Indicators:
YTD:
VVP exhibited at 1 meeting industry
VVP exhibited at 11 meeting industry
tradeshows
tradeshows:
39 meeting planner attendees
2,186 meeting planner attendees
17 one-on-one sales appointments
450 one on one sales appointments
VVP hosted 1 site and FAM tours to
VVP hosted 8 site and FAM tours to
drive group business to Vail:
drive group business to Vail:
640 potential room nights
15,170 potential room nights
VVP hosted 1 client lunch event:
VVP hosted 3 client events:
4 planners in attendance
59 planners reached
New leads generated: 15 YTD leads generated: 81
Groups booked YTD: 24 Room nights in system: 429297
Leads in system: 45 Future Pipeline: +52%
Room Nights on-the-books: +18%
What's Next (May):
CSAE Annual Meeting at the Four Seasons
MPI/PCMA Golf Tournament
Executive Summary:
April was a good month for lead generation, and booking pace year-over-year is up 41%. Room
nights in the pipeline and room nights on the books are both positive. We expect some group &
meeting compression this summer and fall due to the closure of Vail Cascade Resort and loss of
their meeting space for groups and events.
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
VoiftlleyPortnership.com VisitVaiftlley.com Vai1Va11eyMeonseusiness.com VailonSale.com
June 7, 2016 - Page 148 of 167
AA,p
WasivaLLEV
PRRTV IF R 57ffFP'
Geographic Market Mix:
Year -to -Date:
2013
2015:
Colorado:
65%
54%
Southeast:
4%
30%
Midwest:
9%
2%
West:
13%
7%
Northeast:
4%
5%
International:
4%
2%
Geographic Market Trends:
Assaiofon of Chorn6r of Commerce Nx , u ",
12015 Chamber
�of the Year
FINALIST
r
Colorado
Se utheast
Midwest
WG!Wt
2013
2014
2015
s
2015 7YD
57
560/&
54%
65%
21
14%
30%
4%
4%
8%
15%
8%
2%
7%
10% '
13%
Northeast
10%
6%
5%
4%
International
0%
0%
2%
4%
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
Vai1Va11eyPartnership.com VisitVoilValley.com Voi1Va11eyMeonseusiness.com VailonSale.com
ne t, zu-in - rage
167
AAO
WasivaLLEV
PRRTV IF R 57ffFP'
Vertical Segment Market Mix:
Year to Date:
2013
2015:
Medical:
30%
39%
Corporate:
17%
32%
SMERF:
9%
7%
Association:
39%
11%
Sports/Events:
4%
11%
Vertical Market Trends:
Assaiofon of Chombu of Commerce Nx , u ",
12015 Chamber
�of the Year
FINALIST
Key Successes:
• Named Top DMO by Colorado Meetings & Events — March 2016
• CSAE Annual Meeting —June 2016 — 287 Room Nights —Bringing approximately 100
CO Association meeting planners
• TTRA (Travel & Tourism Research Association) — June 2016 — 640 Room Nights with
exposure to approximately 350 practitioners and educators engaged in research,
information management and marketing in the travel, tourism and hospitality industries
• American Cup World Fly Fishing Championships — September 2016 — 870 Room Nights
• Building Relationships with the International Market - Japan & Germany
o PBR Youth Baseball Tournament coming to Vail — July 2016 — Potential 10,800
Room Nights - Working with Japanese Cultural Exchange Delegation
o Colorado Bundesliga Soccer Cup — Bringing 2 German Bundesliga teams to the
valley — July 2016 — Potential 600 Room Nights
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
Vai1Va11eyPartnership.com VisitVailValley.com Voi1Va11eyMeonsBusiness.com VailonSale.com
ne t, zu-in - rage
167
2013
2014
2015
2016
Medjcal
35%
36%
39%
30%
Corporate
16%
28%
a2%
17%
SMERF
Association
10%
37%
16%
20%
7%
11%
9%
39%
Sports S Events
2%
11%
11%
111',,
Key Successes:
• Named Top DMO by Colorado Meetings & Events — March 2016
• CSAE Annual Meeting —June 2016 — 287 Room Nights —Bringing approximately 100
CO Association meeting planners
• TTRA (Travel & Tourism Research Association) — June 2016 — 640 Room Nights with
exposure to approximately 350 practitioners and educators engaged in research,
information management and marketing in the travel, tourism and hospitality industries
• American Cup World Fly Fishing Championships — September 2016 — 870 Room Nights
• Building Relationships with the International Market - Japan & Germany
o PBR Youth Baseball Tournament coming to Vail — July 2016 — Potential 10,800
Room Nights - Working with Japanese Cultural Exchange Delegation
o Colorado Bundesliga Soccer Cup — Bringing 2 German Bundesliga teams to the
valley — July 2016 — Potential 600 Room Nights
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
Vai1Va11eyPartnership.com VisitVailValley.com Voi1Va11eyMeonsBusiness.com VailonSale.com
ne t, zu-in - rage
167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Transportation Master Plan Update
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 151 of 167
rowN ofvain
Memorandum
To: Town Council
From: Public Works Department
Date: June 7, 2016
Subject: Vail Transportation Master Plan
SUMMARY
The Town of Vail has contracted with Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig to update the 2009
Vail Transportation Master Plan. The update to the transportation master plan will be
an on-going effort over the next 10-12 months and will include the following topics at a
master plan level;
Traffic
o Existing conditions
o Accident analysis
o Lionshead drop off area
o Future traffic projections and modeling
o Recommended improvements
Transit
o Existing conditions
o Recommended improvements
■ Line haul route using underpass (West Vail to Ford Park)
■ Other route modifications
Parking
o Existing conditions
o Recommended improvements
■ Updated recommendations based on recent parking data
Estimated Project Capital Costs
Based on previous efforts it is not expected that there will be a significant changes to
the traffic improvement recommendations as depicted within the existing master plan,
however with the implementation of the 1-70 underpass there will be opportunities to
enhance transit service with the implementation of the Line Haul route as discussed
through the 1-70 underpass design process. This also may result in possible future
modifications to other transit routes as well.
June 7, 2016 - Page 152 of 167
Parking is a more dynamic issue and with updated parking data, including parking
statistics and event scheduling, it is anticipated that there will be an opportunity to
enhance this portion of the master plan.
The process will be open to the public and will have multiple opportunities for the public
to engage the design team and the Council. The following outlines opportunities for
public engagement;
June 7, 2016
Council Meeting: Project Kick Off - Information Update
June13, 2016*
PEC: Project Kick Off
July 11, 2016*
Charette: Transit — All day event with varying focus groups
July 19, 2016*
Council: Transit
August*
Charette: Parking — All day event with varying focus groups
August 16, 2016*
Council: Parking
October*
Public Open House: Preliminary Recommendations
Nov. -Feb 2017*
Council & PEC: Draft Recommendations
March 2017*
PEC: Final Recommendation
March 2017*
Council: Final Adoption
*All dates subject to change as the process continues
As shown, staff and the design team will provide frequent updates and engagement
opportunities for the public and Council. If Council desires additional engagement or
more specific information regarding other transportation related issues, please let staff
know so we may incorporate them into the process.
Town of Vail Page 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 153 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Quarterly update on the Sustainable Destination Project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Sustainable Destination - Quarterly Update
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 154 of 167
SUSTAINABLE
(5)TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL
Makina A Better World The Destination
ti
walking mountains®
science center
walkingmountains.org 1970.827.9725
Progress Report to Town of Vail
Vail Sustainable Destination Project
Overall Goal: To accomplish Sustainable Destination Certification under the Global Sustainable
Tourism Council's (GSTC) destination criteria by end of December 2017. The 2016 scope of
work includes three areas: 1) Project Management, 2) Destination Standard Development (for
Vail as a whole), and 3) Enterprise Standards & Program Development (for businesses within
Vail).
Sustainable Travel International (STI) and Walking Mountains Science Center (WMSC) worked
together and completed the following work for Town of Vail (TOV) during January -May of
2016:
Scope One: Project Management
o Developed a collaborative work plan and implementation timeline
o Conducted a 2016 work plan kick-off meeting
o Defined project partner's roles & responsibilities moving forward
o STI contacted GSTC to discuss recognition application process for
Enterprise/business standard. Will submit application for Enterprise Standard
(Actively Green) recognition in June.
- Scope Two: Destination Standard Development
o Preparation for May 13 Sustainable Destination Steering Committee meeting
o STI submitted first draft of Destination Criteria and indicators to WMSC for
initial review
o WMSC reviewed GSTC Destination Standards and provided feedback to STI
o STI prepared Destination Standards feedback form for Vail Steering Committee
o WMSC coordinated and hosted a Vail Sustainable Destination Steering
Committee meeting on May 13 at the Sonnenalp Hotel
Scope Three: Enterprise Standards & Program Development
o WMSC provided regular one-on-one outreach to Vail businesses supporting
Actively Green (Enterprise) trainings and certifications
o STI expanded the baseline Enterprise practices to include intermediate and
advanced levels
o STI submitted updated standards to WMSC for initial review and comment
o STI addressed feedback gathered from WMSC and resubmitted a formal feedback
form for distribution to Actively Green businesses
o WMSC hosted a working session with Actively Green certified businesses to
solicit feedback
June 7, 2016 - Page 155 of 167
o STI and WMSC collaborated to discuss feedback and improvements to Enterprise
Standards
o WMSC recruited local businesses and provided a two -afternoon Actively Green
training on January 27 and February 3
o WMSC recruited businesses and provided an Actively Green (Enterprise) training
on April 20 & 27
o WMSC recognized certified businesses in eight Vail Daily advertisements
o WMSC presented to the Vail Rotary Club and provided an update on progress
o Revised Actively Green standards based on feedback from businesses
Work in Progress through 2016:
- June
o Prepare and submit GSTC Enterprise Standard application
o STI and WMSC will revise Destination Standards based on initial feedback from
Steering Committee
o Determine key stakeholders to engage for public comment process with TOV and
Steering Committee
o WMSC will coordinate a Marketing and Communications Sub -Committee
meeting to determine next steps
o STI will begin design and development of the new integrated Sustainability
Management System (SMS) (includes Destination Criteria and new updated
Enterprise Criteria)
- July
o Continue to solicit feedback on Destination Standards from Steering Committee
and community—use personal meetings, interviews, web, and email during this
phase and host community stakeholder open house session
o Continue design and development SMS
o Begin recruitment for August 24 & 31 Actively Green sustainable business
training.
o Create plan for rollout of new Enterprise Standard for businesses (determine with
input from businesses)
- August
o Incorporate public input into Destination Standard
o Recognize certified businesses in Vail Daily advertisements
o Host Actively Green sustainable business training sessions on August 24 & 31
o WMSC and TOV prepare for on-site Pre -Assessment session with Steering
Committee
September
o STI will coordinate process with GSTC to recognize Destination Standard (submit
application for recognition and request expedited process)
2
June 7, 2016 - Page 156 of 167
o WMSC will coordinate and host Steering Committee meeting: pre -assessment of
Destination Standard (Review criteria and indicators and determine if policies are
in place, if there is evidence to support the practice and where it can be found.
This will expedite formal assessment process in 2017.)
- October
o STI will Begin migration of users and data into new integrated SMS (includes
both Enterprise and Destination standards)
o WMSC will prepare for November 16 Annual Awards Celebration
o Support Vail businesses in attaining Actively Green Certification prior to Awards
Celebration
o Create/refine calendar of activities for 2017 to include Destination Certification
before 2018
- November
o Continue migration of users and data into new integrated SMS (includes both
Enterprise and Destination standards)
o Wednesday November 16 Annual Awards Celebration
- December
o Finalize and launch new integrated SMS
o Begin rollout of new Enterprise Standard and advanced level trainings for
businesses
o Host Steering Committee meeting
o STI and WMSC will work with TOV to refine 2017 work plan to ensure
Destination Certification by end of December 2018.
For more information contact:
Bobby Chappell, Senior Director of Standards & Monitoring, Sustainable Travel
International: bobbyc(&sustainabletravel.org
Kim Langmaid, Vice President, Director of Sustainability & Stewardship Programs,
Walking Mountains Science Center: kimlAwalkingmountains.org
3
June 7, 2016 - Page 157 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: March 2016 Vail Business Review
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
March 2016 Vail Business Review
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 158 of 167
TOWN OF
0
VAIL �
75 South Frontage Road West Finance Department
Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2100
vailgov.com 970.479.2248 fax
Vail Business Review
March 2016
June 1, 2016
The March Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for
March and first quarter 2016. Overall March sales tax increased 3.6% with Retail
increasing 2.2%, Lodging increased 7.2%, Food and Beverage decreased .3% and
Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals)
decreased 1.2%. Excluding the Out of Town category, sales tax for the month of March
was up 4.0%. The first quarter resulted in a 2.9% increase overall with Retail increasing
1.2%, Lodging increased 4.7%, Food and Beverage increased 1.4% and Utilities/Other
increased 4.0%. Excluding the Out of Town category, first quarter sales tax is up 2.8%.
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,
L
Sally Lorton
Sales Tax Administrator
June 7, 2016 - Page 159 of 167
March
kr TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW
TOWN OF VAIL
Sales Tax Newsletter
March 2016 Sales Tax
June 7, 2016 - Page 160 of 167
March
March
March
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
VAIL VILLAGE
Retail
612,112
616,656
0.74%
Lodging
873,635
931,729
6.65%
F & B
621,077
631,098
1.61 %
Other
23,076
29,252
26.76%
Total
2,129,900
2,208,736
3.70%
LIONSHEAD
Retail
261,152
262,660
0.58%
Lodging
550,121
615,568
11.90%
F & B
146,780
145,045
-1.18%
Other
4,633
5,614
21.17%
Total
962,686
1,028,888
6.88%
CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL
Retail
231,511
239,197
3.32%
Lodging
269,878
274,742
1.80%
F & B
111,883
100,957
-9.77%
Other
5,870
7,025
19.67%
Total
619,142
621,922
0.45%
OUT OF TOWN
Retail
91,129
103,476
13.55%
Lodging
71,562
69,961
-2.24%
F & B
1,783
1,538
-13.72%
Utilities & Other
178,440
167,682
-6.03%
Total
342,914
342,656
-0.08%
6/1/2016 3:51:11 PM
emGovPower
Page 1 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 160 of 167
March
TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW
TOWN OF HAIL
Sales Tax Newsletter
March 2016 Sales Tax
TOTAL
6/1/2016 3:51:11 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 161 of 167
March
March
March
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
Retail
1,195,904
1,221,989
2.18%
Lodging And Property Mgmt
1,765,195
1,892,000
7.18%
Food and Beverage
881,523
878,639
-0.33%
Other
212,020
209,574
-1.15%
Total
4,054,641
4,202,201
3.64%
RETAIL SUMMARY
March
March
March
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
RETAIL -FOOD
168,775
178,927
6.02%
RETAIL -LIQUOR
63,752
66,988
5.08%
RETAIL -APPAREL
212,028
213,821
0.85%
RETAIL -SPORT
557,520
579,740
3.99%
RETAIL -JEWELRY
29,857
27,524
-7.81 %
RETAIL -GIFT
5,948
5,236
-11.98%
RETAIL -GALLERY
7,380
3,995
-45.87%
RETAIL -OTHER
150,582
145,703
-3.24%
RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 62
56
-9.93%
Total
1,195,904
1,221,989
2.18%
6/1/2016 3:51:11 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 161 of 167
March YTD
kr TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW
TOWN OF VAIL
Sales Tax Newsletter
March YTD 2016 Sales Tax
June 7, 2016 - Page 162 of 167
March YTD
March YTD
March YTD
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
VAIL VILLAGE
Retail
1,664,211
1,629,871
-2.06%
Lodging
2,361,476
2,459,888
4.17%
F & B
1,783,399
1,795,298
0.67%
Other
59,288
76,341
28.76%
Total
5,868,374
5,961,398
1.59%
LIONSHEAD
Retail
718,117
725,391
1.01 %
Lodging
1,514,060
1,661,782
9.76%
F & B
414,558
441,689
6.54%
Other
18,542
23,275
25.53%
Total
2,665,278
2,852,137
7.01 %
CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL
Retail
663,707
686,264
3.40%
Lodging
796,484
785,528
-1.38%
F & B
300,977
295,380
-1.86%
Other
20,536
20,344
-0.93%
Total
1,781,704
1,787,517
0.33%
OUT OF TOWN
Retail
258,723
304,280
17.61 %
Lodging
214,151
208,432
-2.67%
F & B
5,746
6,810
18.52%
Utilities & Other
553,491
557,879
0.79%
Total
1,032,111
1,077,401
4.39%
6/1/2016 3:52:29 PM
emGovPower
Page 1 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 162 of 167
March YTD
TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW
TOWN OF HAIL
Sales Tax Newsletter
March YTD 2016 Sales Tax
TOTAL
Total 11,347,467 11,678,453 2.92%
RETAIL SUMMARY
March YTD
March YTD
March YTD
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
Retail
3,304,758
3,345,807
1.24%
Lodging And Property Mgmt
4,886,172
5,115,630
4.70%
Food and Beverage
2,504,680
2,539,176
1.38%
Other
651,857
677,840
3.99%
Total 11,347,467 11,678,453 2.92%
RETAIL SUMMARY
6/1/2016 3:52:29 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 163 of 167
March YTD
March YTD
March YTD
2015
2016
%
Collections
Collections
Change
RETAIL -FOOD
483,347
502,506
3.96%
RETAIL -LIQUOR
186,951
194,309
3.94%
RETAIL -APPAREL
615,873
575,412
-6.57%
RETAIL -SPORT
1,508,277
1,564,161
3.71 %
RETAIL -JEWELRY
79,612
67,086
-15.73%
RETAIL -GIFT
17,250
16,402
-4.92%
RETAIL -GALLERY
23,996
11,786
-50.88%
RETAIL -OTHER
389,266
413,978
6.35%
RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION
186
167
-9.93%
Total
3,304,758
3,345,807
1.24%
6/1/2016 3:52:29 PM emGovPower Page 2 of 2
June 7, 2016 - Page 163 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: April 2016 Revenue Highlights
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Revenue Highlights
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 164 of 167
TOWN OF VAIL
REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
May 3, 2016
Sales Tax
Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, March collections are estimated to be
$4,211,131 up 3.9% from last year and up 1.6% compared to budget. Year to
date collections of $11,677,239 are up 2.9% from prior year and up .7% from
budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up .9% for
March. The annual budget totals $25.6 million.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
RETT collections through April 27 total $1,499,992 down .7% from this time last
year. The annual 2016 RETT budget currently totals $6.5 million.
Construction Use Tax
Use Tax collections through April 27 total $882,947 compared to $732,044 from
this time last year. The annual budget totals $1,545,000.
Parking Revenue
Season to date:
Pass sales from November through April total $1,037,653, up 26.8% from prior
winter season.
Daily sales from the parking structures from November through April total
approximately $4.1 million, up 10% from the prior winter season.
-1-
June 7, 2016 - Page 165 of 167
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal
advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Regarding: KAABOO Festival and Chamonix Housing Project
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney
June 7, 2016 - Page 166 of 167
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Recess estimated at 3:40 p.m.
TOWN OF VAIP
June 7, 2016 - Page 167 of 167