Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-0424 PECTOWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April24, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: Ludwig Kurz Legal Update and Training - Matt Mire, Town Attorney — Matt Mire provided general legal training on the topics of liability, legislative and quasi-judicial reviews, conflicts of interest, and ex -parte contact. He indicated that for conflicts of interest, PEC members should consider if they, their spouse, family or company would receive any financial benefit from any decision that they make as a voting member of the PEC. If so, then there is a conflict of interest. Mire discussed the roles and responsibilities of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the requirements to take minutes, voting procedures, and conduct during site visits. Election of Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate John Rediker as Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 5-0-1 (Rediker Recused). Election of Vice -Chair - Commissioner Gillette, seconded by Brian Stockmar, made a motion to nominate Ludwig Kurz as Vice -Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The motion was approved 6-0-0. Site Visit — Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek — 434 South Frontage Road 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) — 60 min. Applicant: Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence MOTION:Continue to May 22, 2017 FIRST: Perez SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Spence introduced the project to the PEC. Spence outlined the process for the review of a request for a new Special Development District (SDD). The PEC will be asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council. Spence then summarized the project details, including the number and type of the proposed units. The structure will be constructed atop the existing parking facility. Deviations associated with the request include: the east side setback, building height, density, gross residential floor area (GRFA), site coverage, and loading dock width. Spence identified an error in the staff memo regarding attached accommodation units (AUs) and how they apply to density. Spence then discussed the history of the subject property as well as adjacent parcels. In 2006 the property was subdivided, creating nonconformities in regards to site coverage and limited the future available GRFA. Gillette asked about the purpose of the 2006 subdivision. Spence deferred to the applicant to answer during their presentation. Rediker asked Spence for clarification of the existing zoning of the subject property and adjacent parcels. Rediker then asked about the criteria for establishing an SDD. Spence summarized the nine (9) standards that are to be considered during the review of an SDD. Spence added that consideration is to be given to the public benefit versus the amount of relief requested. Gillette asked about the process involved in the previous subdivision. Spence responded that it was reviewed and approved by the PEC. Stockmar stated a concern about the relationship between the previous subdivision and the relief being requested. Gillette and Rediker asked that the minutes of the PEC meeting that approved the subdivision be provided before the next meeting. Gillette asked about the amount of relief that would be required if the subdivision did not occur. Spence replied density, height, and possibly GRFA. Hopkins asked if parking would be compliant to which Spence replied in the affirmative. Perez asked about the status of the Apollo Park lease and if there were any plans for its redevelopment. Spence replied that there are no requests at this time. Hopkins asked for clarification of the property lines Dominic Mauriello, representative of the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mauriello introduced the development team and then discussed the characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property. Mauriello discussed the proposed site plan including circulation and the building footprint. Phase One of the development included 112 parking spaces that also accommodated parking needs for Phase Two. Mauriello summarized the number and type of units proposed. He emphasized that the proposed employee housing units (EHUs) are a public benefit. Mauriello introduced Will Hentschel of 359 Design to discuss the elevations and architectural design of the proposal. Referencing the elevations, Hentschel stated that the north elevation design took into account the surrounding context and other architecture along the 1-70 corridor. The south elevation maintains a base -middle -top design approach. Materials include stone veneer base, wood siding where allowed, metal panels, and glass. Hentschel then reviewed the floor plans for each level. Mauriello continued his presentation by outlining the approval process. He then discussed the public benefits of the project including the provision of EHUs, short term AUs, and public art. Gillette suggested that the applicant consider placing the public art near the creek. Mauriello discussed the history of the subject property and its relation to Apollo Park to the east. Gillette asked for clarification on the existing building and if it encroaches into the side yard setback. Mauriello summarized the requested deviations from the underlying High Density Multi - Family (HDMF) Residential zone district and compared them to other previously established SDDs. Mauriello stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been provided. The report did not find any significant impacts to the environment. A traffic study has also been provided. CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) will not require any new improvements. Mauriello then identified the pedestrian connections. A video of a sun/shade analysis was provided. Mauriello provided more details regarding the layout, size, and location of the EHUs. He then did the same for the AUs and for sale dwelling units (DUs). Gillette asked if anyone knew how many hotel rooms were in the Vail Mountain Lodge. Brian Johnson, property manager of the Vail Mountain Lodge, was in attendance and responded that there are twenty (20) AUs within Vail Mountain Lodge. Hopkins asked about the separation distance between Phase One and Phase Two. Hentschel stated that at its closest point it is approximately 22' between structures. Mauriello discussed the project in relation to the goals, objectives, and action plan located within the Vail Village Master Plan. Mauriello concluded his presentation by discussing the public outreach the applicant has conducted to date. Spence asked Mauriello to discuss why the application to amend the Vail Village Master Plan was withdrawn. Rediker asked for commissioner comment. Stockmar stated his concern about the previous subdivision and what might be anticipated for the subject and adjacent properties. Rediker asked what the sun/shade impact will be to the frontage road. Mauriello explained that there will be some impact and has already discussed with Public Works the necessity for heated sidewalks. Rediker asked about impacts on the road itself. Mauriello stated that measures similar to those taken by Solaris may be required. Rediker asked about the impact on the parking lot to the east. Mauriello replied that the impact tends to occur during summer afternoons but will provide more information at the next meeting. Rediker asked for clarification in regards to the setbacks. He stated that the Vail Village Master Plan references extensive landscape buffering if the subject property were to be redeveloped and asked about any proposed landscaping. Hopkins asked if CDOT regulated the size of the vegetation in the right-of-way. Mauriello responded that there is no proposed vegetation within the right-of-way. Perez asked if there are any noise impact studies in consideration of the proximity of the units. Hentschel replied that no studies have been conducted, but they will meet the Vail Town Code noise requirements. Gillette asked staff if there were design guidelines by which the proposal should be evaluated. Spence stated that there are basic guidelines located within the Vail Village Master Plan, but the property is not located within the Vail Village Urban Design Guideline document. Rediker asked staff if there are other items located within the Vail Village Master Plan that are of concern due to a lack of compliance. Lockman asked about specific details of different zone districts. Perez asked if there is concern about creating SDDs instead of maintaining consistent zone districts. Spence outlined concerns that have been mentioned about SDDs, including a lack of predictability. Lockman asked about the proposed setback deviation. Mauriello stated that the applicant is looking at adjusting the zero foot (0') setback. Gillette stated that in order to address the setback issue, the lot could be re -subdivided. Mauriello stated that this would not be likely. Hopkins commented about the lack of visual interest on the north side of the property and suggested additional pockets of landscape. Rediker opened the meeting for public comment. Chris Romer, President, Vail Valley Partnership (WP), stated the VVP supports the proposal. The VVP finds the bulk and mass is appropriate and meets a need for mid-range hotel rooms and EHUs. Tom Saalfeld., manager of the Tyrolean building, requested sun/shade analysis on the Tyrolean. He stated that there are owners within the Tyrolean concerned about the height and density of the proposed structure. Brian Johnson, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge, stated his support for the project and that he did not feel the proposed hotel units would compete with Vail Mountain Lodge. He does not object to the height of the proposed structure. He does agree that the sidewalk should be heated. Commissioner Comment: Stockmar: Expressed his concern about the proposed height of the structure, especially in relation to the existing building and the Tyrolean building. He is also concerned that the proposed setback is too small. He also suggested the lengthy EHU hallway should be broken up. Hentschel clarified that it was the hallway for the AUs. Stockmar clarified that said hallway should be broken up. Gillette: Expressed concern about the bulk and mass of the structure, including the uniform roofline and fagades. Expressed support for SDDs and adding GRFA and bulk if there is sufficient public benefit. He suggested the structure meet code height toward the west in proximity of the Tyrolean. In regards to public benefit, he would like to see more EHU and less AU floor space. He also believes the setback requirements should be met. Lockman: Concerned about the setback encroachment. Also concerned about the amount of GRFA proposed, which is connected to concerns about the building height and mass. Acknowledges the benefits of adding GRFA in proximity to the commercial core, but believes the Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses a limit to mass and height. Hopkins: The project creates a tunnel effect on the south side of the structure. Is concerned about the sidewalk and believes it should be heated. Concern about building height as the existing garage is already above grade. She asked for locations of mechanical equipment. Hentschel replied that there will be spaces created within the parapet areas, but they will provide more information at the next meeting. She is also concerned with the lack of animation on the north fagade. Perez: Concerned about the proposed building height Rediker: The Vail Village Master plan recommends four stories, which is an issue especially in consideration of the sloping nature of the property. He is concerned about the height and believes people driving along the frontage roads and 1-70 should be able to see Vail Village and Vail Mountain. He commented on zoning in general and the use of SDDs. Though he is not necessarily against the use of an SDD, he stated the property was designated as HDMF for a reason. Agreed that the north fagade needs additional architectural character and buffering from the frontage road. Also has concerns regarding installation of heated sidewalks due to their environmental impact. In regards to neighboring properties, he finds it helpful to have written comment either in favor of or in opposition to the project. Stated that there are some benefits to the proposal, including the addition of hot beds. Concluded with his belief that the project might be helped by the elimination of some of the EHUs as the project as proposed is too large. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008)— 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel Planner: Chris Neubecker MOTION: Continue to May 8, 2017 FIRST: Gillette SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-0-0 Neubecker introduced the proposed text amendment to add a chapter to Title 12 for a Transportation Impact Fee. The amendment covers system related and project related impacts. A draft ordinance has been provided to the PEC. The ordinance allows for the Town Council to set the fee annually. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, described the Transportation Impact Fee in more detail. The origin of the proposal is based on the Town Council's request that a fee that is already being collected be codified in the Town Code. A consultant, TischlerBise, was hired to complete a rational nexus study of the impacts of development on the Town's transportation infrastructure and develop the recommended fees. The purpose of the transportation impact fee is to help offset future transportation infrastructure needs caused by growth and new development. Referencing a PowerPoint presentation, Kassmel discussed the differences and similarities between the existing and proposed transportation impact fee language. Kassmel included state requirements associated with the Colorado Impact Fee Act and different methods for implementing impact fees. He explained the difference between project level and system level improvements. He also described some potential future transportation projects and areas where additional road lanes might be needed over the next 25 years. Kassmel then provided examples of what the transportation impact fee would be for certain types of development. The commissioners asked several questions about how the impact fee would be applied in certain scenarios. Several commissioners expressed concern about how the fee was proposed to be applied on a square footage basis. There were comments that a fee based on the construction of new units would be fair. There was some questions about basing the fee on the number of parking spaces required. Kassmel stated that it would be helpful for the commissioners to provide comments on the language of the proposed ordinance, especially in regards to the findings, purpose, and applicability. Gillette stated his support for finding an alternative means to raise the necessary funds, such as an increase in sales tax. He reiterated his concern that the fee as proposed would be paid by only a few new developments, rather than spread across the community. 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-4-A-3, Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building identification sign above the 25 foot height limitation, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive (Hotel Talisa)/Cascade Village — Cascade Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0007) Applicant: Hotel Talisa, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Withdrawn 5. Approval of Minutes April 10, 2017 PEC Meeting Results MOTION: Approve FIRST: Stockmar SECOND: 6. Informational Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Adjourn FIRST: Perez SECOND: Perez VOTE: 6-0-0 Stockmar VOTE: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. TOWN OF VA110 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 24, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock - offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0006) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17- Staff Memorandum 0006_SDD_No._42_Mountain_View Residences Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A_(Vicinity_Map).pdf Attachment Attachment B_(Narrative).pdf Attachment B Attachment C_(Plans)_Part_1.pdf Attachment C Part 1 Attachment C_(Plans)_Part_2.pdf Attachment C Part 2 Attachment C_(Plans)_Part_3.pdf Attachment C Part 3 Attachment D_(Vail_Village_Master Plan_in_part).pdf Attachment D TOWN OFVAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC,represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units (EHUs), located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. Process The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation, but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. Timeline The applicant has submitted a project review timeline indicating their preference that this meeting functions as an introduction to the project for the PEC. The applicant's projected timeline* is as follows: • 4/24 PEC Worksession 5/3 Design Review Board (DRB) Conceptual Review 5/22 PEC Public Hearing (recommendation to TC) 6/7 DRB Conceptual Review 6/12 PEC (Back-up final public hearing if necessary) 6/20 TC First Reading/Worksession 7/18 TC First Reading or Second Reading 7/19 DRB conceptual 8/1 TC Final Hearing/Second Reading 8/16 DRB Final Approval * The above timeline is only an estimate by the applicant and is subject to change. Based upon the applicant's submitted timeline and the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC17-0006 to the May 22, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 42, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative (Attachment B) and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. The project is composed of the following components: Employee Housing Units (EHUs) The proposed nine (9) EHUs will be deed -restricted rental units, limited to residents working at least thirty (30) hours per week in Eagle County. The proposed EHUs range in size from approximately 1,015 square feet to 1,309 square feet and all are two- bedroom units. The EHUs are located on the first and second floors above the parking garage in the proposed structure. The total square footage of the nine (9) units totals 11,153 square feet. EHUs, per the Vail Town Code, are not considered Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and are thus not deducted from a development's Town of Vail Page 2 available GRFA. In addition, EHUs do contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Accommodation Units The project is proposing twenty one (21) accommodation units also located on the first and second floor of the proposed structure. The units range in size from 347 square feet to 462 square feet. The total GRFA for the twenty one (21) accommodation units is 7,923 square feet. The accommodation units, in the HDMF district, are counted as one- half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Dwelling Units The project is proposing twelve (12) for sale dwelling units to be located on third, fourth and fifth (dormer) floors of the structure. These units range in size from 1,500 square feet to 3,319 square feet. The units proposed are a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom layouts. The total proposed GRFA of the dwelling units is 26,462 square feet. Attached Accommodation Units (Lock Offs) The project is proposing six (6) attached accommodation units or lock -offs attached to six (6) of the dwelling units. These units may be rented separately and have direct access from common areas without necessitating passing through a dwelling unit. These units range in size from 367 square feet to 519 square feet and are located on the third and fourth levels of the proposed structure. The total proposed GRFA for the Attached Accommodation Units is 2,570 square feet. Attached accommodation units do contribute to the calculation of dwelling units for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. Existing Parking As part of Phase 1 of the Mountain View Residences, discussed in greater detail in the background section below, a 112 space parking structure was built in 2006 along the northern portion of the property. This three story structure, located predominately below grade, provides required parking for the 23 dwelling units located in the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 building and the required parking for the proposed Phase 2 building. Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The project proposes a zero foot (0') side setback on the east side where twenty feet (20') is required. In the project narrative, the applicant professes this is of no consequence as the adjacent property is owned by the applicant. The purpose of the setback is unrelated to ownership and instead provides necessary area between structures on adjacent properties in addition to allowing permeability along the Frontage Road. Town of Vail Page 3 Building Height: The project is proposing an overall maximum height of 72' where the maximum for a structure with a sloped roof in the HDMF district is 48'. Density: The maximum density in DU's/Acre in the HDMF district is 25 units which equates to an allowable density of 32 units on the subject parcel. The project is proposing 45.5 units or 35 DU/acre,140% of the allowable. GRFA: The allowable GRFA in the HDMF district is 76/100 square feet of buildable site area or 42,871 square feet of GRFA for the 56,410 square foot parcel. Phase 1 of the development, which was predicated on the whole parcel, including Apollo Park, utilized 42,593 square feet of GRFA. The proposed Phase 2 includes 36,955 square feet of GRFA for a total of 79,548 square feet of GRFA for the parcel or 186% of the allowable. Site Coverage: The project is proposing site coverage of 72.53% where the maximum allowable is 55%. Although the application makes a distinction between above and below grade site coverage, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004 amended the Vail Town Code's definition of site coverage to include both above and below ground improvements. Loading Berth Dimensions: The required loading berth dimensions, found in Chapter 10 of Article 12, are 12' (width) by 35' (length) by 14' (height). The proposed loading dock is deficient by 2' in width at 10'. III. BACKGROUND The subject parcel, together with the adjacent Apollo Park parcel to the east, comprised Tract D of Vail Village Fifth Filing, approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission in November of 1965, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966. In the mid 1970's the Apollo Park development was constructed that included 89 dwelling units in four buildings. An aerial view of this development can be found on page 5 of the applicant's narrative, included as Attachment B. In 2006 the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) approved the replacement of buildings C and D of the Apollo Park development with a new structure, Mountain View Residences Phase 1, and the associated parking structure. Subsequent to this approval, Tract D was split through the Minor Subdivision process into two parcels. This subdivision was recorded in 2008 with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The eastern parcel contains the remaining Buildings A and B of the original Apollo Park Development, containing 40 dwelling units functioning predominately as a timeshare development, while the western parcel contains the Mountain View Residences Phase 1 structure, and the associated parking structure. Town of Vail Page 4 IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal. Please see Attachment D for relevant excerpts from the Vail Village Master Plan Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1— Title, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. Town of Vail Page 5 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Chapter 6, Article H, High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District 12-6H-1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(1977) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.100) 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site,- additional ite,additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. (Ord. 1(2008) § 9) 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Town of Vail Page 6 Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Private parking structures. Private unstructured parking. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public parking structures. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. Timeshare units. (Ord. 2(2016) § 6: Ord. 12(2008) § 9) 12-6H-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(19 73) § 6.400) Town of Vail Page 7 12-6H-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12-6H-6: SETBACKS.- The ETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-6H-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- Not ONTROL: Not more than seventy six (76) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 14(2004) § 9: Ord. 31(2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 19: Ord. 12(1977) § 2) 12-6H-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.507) 12-6H-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) 12-6H-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this Town of Vail Page 8 title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.510) Chapter 9 — Special and Miscellaneous Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. 12-9A-4: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.- A. ROCEDURES: A. Approval of Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within a special development district. B. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the Town of Vail Page 9 petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. 12-9A-11: RECREATION AMENITIES TAX. Town of Vail Page 10 A recreation amenities tax shall be assessed on all special development districts in accordance with title 2, chapter 5 of this code at a rate to be determined by the town council. This rate shall be based on the rate of the underlying zone district or the rate which most closely resembles the density plan for the zone district, whichever is greater. V. ZONING / SDD NO. 42 ANALYSIS Address: 430 and 434 South Frontage Road E Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 5, Lot 1, a resubdivision of Tract D Existing Zoning: High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District Existing Land Use Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Mapped Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes >40% (result of prior development) Standard Allowed / Existing Proposed Mountain View Required (Phase 1) Phase 2*** Phase 1 and 2*** HDMF Site Area Min. 10,000 56,410 sq. ft. No Change 56,410 sq. ft. sq. ft. (1.295 acres) (1.295 acres) Front — 20' Front — 20' Front — 20' Front — 20' Setbacks Side — 20' Side(w) — 20' Side(w) — 20' Side(w) — 20' Rear — 20' Side(e) — 20' Side(e) — 0' Side(e) — 0' Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Flat or Sloping Roof — 48' Sloping Sloping Roof — Mansard Roof — 72' 72' Height Roof — 45' Sloping Roof — 48' 25 DUs/ per 23 DUs 21 AUs=10.5 45.5 DUs acre of 17.8 DU/acre DUs 35 DU/acre buildable site 12 DUs w/ Density area, or 32 lock -offs units on a 9 EHUs 1.295 acre Total=22.5 parcel. DUs Max. 76/100 42,593 sq. ft. 36,955 sq. ft. 79,548 sq. ft. or GRFA* Buildable 141/100 Site Area or 42,871 sq. ft. Max. 55% of 22.35%=12,599 15,122 sq. ft. 49.15%=27,721 total site sq. ft. above grade above grade sq. ft. above grade Site Coverage** area (31,026 69.91 %=39,424 72.53%=40,903 sq. ft.) sq. ft. including 1,479 sq. ft. sq. ft. including below grade Below grade below grade Per Chapter 49 Required Additional 63 109 Required 10 112 Provided Spaces 112 Provided Parking/Loading 1 Loading Space 1 Loading Space Provided/Required Provided/Required Minor deviation Town of Vail Page 11 VI. Although the EHUs total 11,153 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2008 *** Staff has not confirmed these calculations at the time of this memo's preparation. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use Zoning District North: 1-70 ROW None East: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District South: Gore Creek Streamtract Natural Area Preservation (NAP) West: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at the Mav 22. 2017 qublic hearina before the Plannina and Environmental Commission 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Town of Vail Page 12 in width requirement requested. Min. 30% of 63.62% (35,881 7,656 sq. ft. 40.04% Landscaping total site sq. ft.) (22,581 sq. ft.) area (16,923 sq. ft. Although the EHUs total 11,153 square feet in size, they do not count towards GRFA. ** The existing site coverage became nonconforming with the subdivision of the property in 2008 *** Staff has not confirmed these calculations at the time of this memo's preparation. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use Zoning District North: 1-70 ROW None East: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District South: Gore Creek Streamtract Natural Area Preservation (NAP) West: High Density Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at the Mav 22. 2017 qublic hearina before the Plannina and Environmental Commission 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Town of Vail Page 12 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff poses the following questions to encourage discussion related to Mountain View Residences Phase 2 and the proposed new SDD: Originally, the project proposed revisions to the Sub Area specific recommendations in the Vail Village Master Plan. The corresponding sub area for this project is the East Frontage Road Sub -Area (#9), which includes the subject parcel but also Apollo Park, the Wren and the Tyrolean developments. A revision to the master plan would allow a comprehensive look at the whole sub area. Is this a process that should be revisited? 2. The Vail Village Master Plan has specific recommendations, (included as Attachment D), for this parcel related to building height, building stepbacks and landscaping. Does the project, as proposed, respond to these recommendations? 3. Is the proposed public benefit, six (6) additional EHUs above the required Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning requirements, commensurate with the requested relief from the dimensional standards, specifically GRFA and height? 4. Is there justification for the proposed reduction of the required eastern side setback from the required 20' to 0'? Setbacks provide needed breaks between buildings on adjoining properties and are consistent with the development patterns of Vail Village. 5. Although not subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan, the project is located within the boundaries of the Vail Village Master Plan. How does the proposed structure relate to its neighbors and the Village as a whole? Is the building's architecture, mass and scale emblematic of Vail Village? Town of Vail Page 13 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission continues PEC17-0006 to the May 22, 2017 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to respond to questions raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative C. Plan Set D. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) Town of Vail Page 14 I Vail Mountain View Residences Submitted to the Town of Vail: March 27, 2017 VM I Id Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Peter Carlson Gore Creek Group LLC 285 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 952-210-0095 Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 Will Hentschel 359 Design 3630 Osage St. Denver, CO 80211 720.512.3437 Davia Miselis Watershed Environmental Consultants P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.471.4547 Ron Byrne and Mary Ann Redmond Ron Byrne & Associates 285 Bridge St Vail, CO 81657 970-476-1987 Skip Hudson, PE TurnKey Consulting LLC 587 1/2 Grand Cascade Way Grand Junction, CO 81501 2 Introduction Gore Creek Group LLC is requesting an application for the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Vail Mountain View Residences to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 430 S. Frontage Road. The new building is referred to as Phase 2 of Vail Mountain View Residences, which is proposed to be constructed above the existing parking structure. Phase 1, the existing 23 residential condominiums, is proposed to be included in the SDD, but the building will not be modified with this application. The proposed Phase 2 consists of deed - restricted employee housing, lodging accommodations, and residential condominiums. The project furthers two identified community goals: the provision of employee housing and the provision of live beds. Employee housing is proposed at 30% of the GRFA of the project, and combined with the live beds, these two community benefits comprise 50% of the GRFA proposed for the project. The existing Phase 1 Building was completed in 2008 under the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone district and included the following uses: 23 for -sale condominiums with 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA 112 parking space parking structure, intended for lease to the public Conditional use permit to allow for the leasing of excess parking spaces which were constructed in anticipation of Phase 2 The proposed Phase 2 building includes the following: 12 for -sale dwelling units with 29,032 sq. ft. of GRFA, to be included in a voluntary rental management program 6 lock -offs to 6 of the dwelling units 9 employee housing units with 11,153 sq. ft. of GRFA 21 accommodation units (hotel rooms) with 7,923 sq. ft. of GRFA Parking to accommodate the proposed uses To facilitate the development of Phase 2, a Special Development District is proposed to be established, with the underlying zoning of HDMF. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of Vail Mountain View Residences property, including the already completed Phase 1. Vail Mountain View Residences presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within Vail Village. It is adjacent to the pedestrian core, but vehicular access is taken from South Frontage Road, allowing for development to occur with minimal impacts to the Village. As an infill site, with the proposed Phase 2 building constructed upon an existing parking structure that was designed to allow for such development, there are minimal impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: 3 Employee housing far in excess of requirements (30% of the total proposed GRFA for the building), all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town Each EHU is in excess of 1,000 sq. ft., 2-bedroom/2-bath units, with a highly functional floor plan U Provision of short-term accommodation units (hotel rooms) within Vail Village, enhancing revenues and vitality Approximately 50% of the entire building is a use deemed by the town to be a public benefit (employee housing uses plus hotel uses) Redevelopment of an infill site within Vail Village Paved access path and stairs through the property allowing pedestrians to walk from the South Frontage Road to the recreation path along Gore Creek Public art piece still to be determined of a value up to $50,000 Conceptual floor plan of the 9 employee housing units. Units range from 1,015 sq. ft. to 1,309 sq. ft., with 2- bedroom/2-bath configuration. Each unit will have in -unit washer/dryer. III Background Vail Mountain View Residences was originally part of Apollo Park. Apollo Park was originally developed on Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing as one large project. Apollo Park included 89 dwelling units. In 2006, the 49 dwelling units in Buildings C & D of Apollo Park were a . demolished and Mountain View Phase 1 was constructed on the western portion of Tract D, which was resubdivided to's, 4 Lot 1, a portion of the original Tract D. Apollo Park, Buildings A and B, remain n, Y on Tract D, with a total 40 units developed on the site. Mountain View l.. +�01,a Phase 1 was constructed under HDMFQr �+ zoning, requiring review only by the 0, Design Review Board, because the project complied with all zoning "' F standards of the HDMF district. As of Phase 1, a parking structure of 112 " parking spaces was constructed in anticipation of a potential future 2004 Google Earth Image of Apollo Park, Buildings A, B, C, and D. development phase. Following the completion of the parking structure, the excess parking spaces were leased to the public. When the Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) was adopted in 1990, it recognized that the HDMF zoning was out of sync with the existing development patterns and the potential for future growth. The VVMP recommended that the zoning be updated. However, no substantial modifications to the HDMF zone district have occurred since 1990, therefore causing the need to redevelop this property as a Special Development District. The surrounding properties, the Wren and Apollo Park, are also non- conforming with respect to density and G RFA. 2015 Google Earth Image of Mountain View Phase 1 and Apollo Park, Buildings A and B. 5 Zoning Analysis Location: Parcel: Lot Size: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning Development Standard Lot Area Setbacks Front Side Rear Building Height (Maximum) Density GRFA Site Coverage 430 South Frontage Road / Lot 1, A Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village 5th 210108246023 1.295 acres / 56,410.2 sq. ft. High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) Special Development District with underlying zoning of HDMF Allowed by HDMF Existing Phase 1 Proposed Phase 2 Mountain View Phase 1 and 2 10,000 sq. ft. 1.295 acres / 56,410 No change sq. ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (w) & 0 ft. (e) 20 ft. 20 ft. 1 20 ft. 48 ft. for sloping roof 48 ft. 45 ft. for flat roof 71.9 ft. 1.295 acres / 56,410 sq. ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. (w) & 0 ft. (e) 120 ft. i 71.9 ft. 25 du/acre = 32 du 23 du 21 au = 10.5 du 45.5 units 12 du with 6 lock offs 9ehu*=0 Density = 22.5 units 76% of lot area = 42,593 sq. ft. Hotel: 7,923 sq. ft. 79,548 sq. ft. _ 42,871 sq. ft. DU: 29,032 sq. ft. 141 % of lot area EHU*: 11,153 sq. ft. GRFA = 36,955 sq. ft. 55% of lot area = 31,026 sq. ft. Landscape Area 30% of lot area = 16,923 sq. ft. 22.35% = 12,599 sq. 15,122 sq. ft. (above- 49.15% = 27,721 ft. (above -grade grade only) sq. ft. (above - only) grade) 69.91 % = 39,424 sq. 40,903 sq. ft. _ ft. (includes below 72.53% (includes grade) below grade) 63.62% = 35,881 sq. 7,656 sq. ft. 40.04% = 22,581 ft. sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA It should be noted that in the HDMF zone district, unlike other zone Town of Vail districts such as Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2, Public Accommodation, and Public Accommodation 2, accommodation units count toward density as 0.5 of a dwelling unit. This is one example of how the HDMF zone district, which largely consists of properties within the core areas of Vail, has not been appropriately updated to reflect current policies regarding the promotion of short term accommodations. If 6 accommodation units were removed from the density calculation, the resulting density for the entire property (Phase 1 and 2) is 35 dwelling units which only exceeds allowable density by 3 units. Proposed Mountain View Phase 2, lookinq north. 7 Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. The Vail Mountain View Special Development District will deviate from the following development standards: ^ Setbacks: The SDD complies with setbacks on the front, rear, and west side. On the east side, adjacent to the Apollo Park property, the proposed setback is 0 ft. from the property line. The location of the proposed building is adjacent to surface parking on the adjoining property. The adjoining property is also owned by this applicant with a land lease to the Apollo Park association, so any impact is offset by this ownership condition. ^ Building Height: The proposed building exceeds the height limitation of 48 ft. The existing Phase 1 building complies with the 48 ft. height limitation. Due to the structured parking below the proposed building, the building exceeds the height limit. The maximum height of the proposed building is 71.9 ft. which reflects a point on the peak of a gable roof form. ^ Density: The SDD will exceed the maximum density of 32 dwelling units. There are 23 dwelling units within the Phase 1 building. As proposed, Phase 2 includes 12 dwelling units, 21 accommodation units, and 9 EHUs (which do not count towards density). In HDMF, unlike many other zone districts, accommodation units count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit. As a result, Phase 2 is 22.5 units, for a total of 45.5 units for the entirety of the project. This is actually a reduction of the previous development on the site, which was 49 units. Additionally, if the HDMF zone district was updated like other districts where hotel rooms are excluded from density calculations, the proposed density would be 35 units. ^ GRFA: The allowable GRFA within the HDMF zone district is 42,871 sq. ft. Phase 1 was constructed with 42,593 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase 2 is proposed at 36,955 sq. ft. of GRFA, for a total of 79,548 sq. ft. for the entirety of the SDD. EHUs do not count towards GRFA. ^ Site Coverage: Mountain View Phase 1 currently exceeds allowable site coverage due to the underground parking structure, which at the time of the original submittal was exempt from site coverage calculations. As a result, there is very little change to the site coverage for the entirety of the project, only an increase of 1,479 sq. ft., for a total site coverage calculation of 72.53%. The allowable site coverage of HDMF is 55%. The project only exceeds the requirement due to the provision of below -grade parking. Above -grade site coverage actually complies with this restriction, at 49.15% I Loading: Mountain View is required just one loading berth for the entirety of the project. One berth is provided. The dimension per Town Code of a loading berth is 12 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14 ft. high. The dimensions of the berth proposed is 10 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14.5 ft. high, so the deviation requested is for 2 ft. in width. In addition, 2 surface parking spaces are provided under the porte cochere that are for temporary parking and loading, which can serve as overflow for any additional loading needs. Deviations such as these are common among Special Development Districts, especially those located within the periphery of Vail Village. Special Development Districts are quite common throughout Vail Village, as indicated on the following map (striped areas indicate SDDs: --� - SDD #2 Below is a chart with an analysis of the more recent SDDs adopted by the Town of Vail in Vail Village. The chart includes the deviations from underlying zoning, along with the public benefits associated with the project. It should be noted that some of these SDDs were adopted prior to the change in the calculation for site coverage, which now includes below grade improvements, like parking, not previously counted, and many would now likely deviate from site coverage requirements. SDD Four Seasons (SDD #36) Underlying Deviations from Underlying Zoning Zoning 0 PA Site Coverage - from 65% to 71 % Height - from 48 ft. to 89 ft. Public Benefits 34 EHUs on-site (today most of these would have been required versus a benefit), contribution to streetscape, north -south walkway from Frontage Rd., improvements to Mayors Park, heated walk along Frontage Road, public art contribution (now a requirement) I SDD Tivoli Lodge (SDD #37) Manor Vail (SDD #38) Solaris (SDD #39) The Willows (SDD #40) Underlying Deviations from Underlying Zoning Zoning PA Height - from 48 ft. to 56 ft. Reduction in landscape area Loading in front setback HDMF Height - from 48 ft. to 57.4 ft. Density - from 133 to 141 units GRFA - 24,691 sq. ft. additional CSC Setback reduction Height - from 38 ft. to 99.9 ft. Density - from 47 to 75 units GRFA - 152,808 sq. ft. additional Site Coverage - 75% to 94% Landscape - increase in hardscape allowance HDMF Setback reduction GRFA increase Site Coverage - 55% to 67% Public Benefits 1 EHU on-site, streetscape improvements 1 EHU on-site, contribution to streetscape improvements, 430 sq. ft. parcel deeded to Town, stream bank improvements, installation of improved access path across site, sidewalk extension 22 EHUs provided offsite, streetscape improvements including heating public streets, public easement over plaza, public ice skating rink, $1.1 million in public art, bowling alley and movie theater, with deed restriction that requires there operation Public art, streetscape improvements, reduction in density As indicated in the chart, deviations such as those requested for the Mountain View Special Development District are common. The underlying zoning of the SDD also has implications in the deviations sought. For example, in many zone districts the density dedicated to accommodation units, fractional units, and timeshare units, do not count towards GRFA. However, in HDMF, accommodation units count toward density. Many zone districts have been updated to reflect current building trends and requirements and in recognition of Town objectives and priorities like the provision of live beds. Building height has been a sensitive subject in Vail from the very beginning of Vail's history. In 1990, with the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan, it was recognized that taller structures were appropriate along the periphery of Vail Village, along the South Frontage Road. Taller buildings along the periphery help frame the context of the urban core area, provide relief from the impacts associated with Interstate 70, and utilize land area often as parking areas, thus removing unsightly views of parking facilities. The other benefit of encouraging additional building height along the South Frontage Road is that impacts to other private properties are substantially reduced. Private views, though not protected in Vail, are generally unaffected by taller buildings in this location. There are four examples of structures developed with additional building height along the periphery, all of which are above 71 ft. in height: 10 Four Seasons - SDD #36 (89 ft.) Sebastian Hotel (formerly the Vail Plaza Hotel) - SDD #6 (77.25 ft.) Vail Village Inn Phase 3 - SDD #6 (-71 ft.) Solaris - SDD #39 (99.9 ft.) The pattern of taller buildings along the South Frontage Road has been well established with logical breaks to allow views to Vail Mountain at Vail Road, Village Center Road, the Vail Village Parking Structure, Vail Valley Drive (Blue Cow Chute) and Ford Park. Whether the building is a three story structure or a five story structure, views from the South Frontage Road to Vail Mountain are blocked. Views over theses properties from either direction of Interstate 70 are adequately maintained. With the Town's 2007 adoption of the EHU requirements for Inclusionary Zoning and Commercial Linkage, the Town did not modify the development standards of the HDMF zone district. However, the provision of on-site employee housing units has an impact on development standards such as height, site coverage, parking, and even GRFA (as the cost of providing EHUs is often off -set through increasing the higher profit-making uses). In this case, the majority of the square footage on Levels 1 and 2 is dedicated to employee housing, with the remainder being another public benefit, hotel rooms, which clearly has an impact on the ability to meet the standards of the HDMF zone district. The provision of these two public benefits clearly outweigh any deviations proposed through this SDD. 11 Parking Analysis Phase 1 Use DU (23) Total spaces for Phase 1 Phase 2 AU (21) Formula If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces Parking Required 17x2=34 6 x 2.5 = 15 49 49 Formula ' Parking Required If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more 4 x 2 = 8 than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces 8 x 2.5 = 20 If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2,000 square feet or more: 2.5 spaces 28 0.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per 16.323 each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit EHU (9) If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is more 18 than 500 square feet, but less than 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces Total spaces for Phase 2 62.323 Parking Analysis for SDD Parking Requirement for Phase 2 Parking Requirement for Phase 1 Parking Requirement for SDD Multi -Use Reduction of 2.5% Total Parking Requirement for SDD Total Parking Spaces Proposed (Existing) 62.323 49 111.323 -2.936 108.387 112 12 Employee Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement (approximately three times the requirement) and the onsite requirement (approximately six times on the onsite requirement) for employee housing. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Commercial Linkage Requirement: 'Formula AU (21) 0.7 per AU Inclusionary Zoning: DU Mr G RFA 29,032 I Employees Mitigation Employees to Generated Rate be Housed 14.7 20% 2.94 Mitigation Rate EHU Sq. Ft. Required 10% 2,903.2 The commercial linkage requirement of 2.94 employees can be converted to 350 sq. ft. per employee, resulting in a commercial linkage requirement of 1,029 sq. ft. Adding this to the inclusionary requirement of 2,903 sq. ft., the total employee housing requirement equates to 3,932 sq. ft. As proposed, there is 11,153 sq. ft. in 9 employee housing units, 7,221 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan has been provided with this submittal. Units range from 1,015 sq. ft. up to 1,309 sq. ft. and are 2-bedroom/2-bath units with highly functional floor plans. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the proposed EHUs and the average lot size of other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; 13 Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-23-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Commercial Linkage Requirements: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new commercial development and redevelopment in the town provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such commercial development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: 14 In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "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." Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. 15 Criteria for Review 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the high quality found on Phase 1 of Mountain View Residences, and is typical of recent redevelopment projects within Vail Village, such as Solaris, the Four Seasons, and the Sebastian. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood, and zinc, to create a project that is responsive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood. Varying roof pitches and forms allow for visual interest. Before the redevelopment of the site, there was significant surface parking. The structured parking now allows the site to be redeveloped to the standards that Vail is accustomed to. The maximum height of the proposed Phase 2 building is 71.9 ft., which exceeds the underlying zoning HDMF maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and is a requested deviation with the establishment of this SDD. Building height is a common deviation for SDDs in Vail Village, especially those located along the Frontage Road, including the Sebastian, Vail Village Inn Phase 3, Solaris, and the Four Seasons. Many older existing HDMF or PA zoned buildings exceed the 48 ft. maximum height requirement. The proposed Phase 2 building, similar to the Phase 1 building, is generally 4 stories with additional livable space in the roof through the use of dormers. Unlike the Phase 1 building, Phase 2 sits upon a parking structure which sits slightly above natural grade. As a result, the height exceeds 48 ft., but is similar in appearance of height to surrounding properties. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, which is not a very efficient use of land. It is likely (and in fact, a requirement of the Vail Village Master Plan) that when these properties redevelop, parking will be located within a below grade structure, similar to the proposed Phase 2 project. These existing surface lots dominate the area: I� Surface parking lots at The Wren and Apollo Park. Future redevelopment of these sites will likely include below - grade parking, with buildings above. 16 The development of property in this neighborhood provides unique opportunities for buffer zones between developments. There is a path from the Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path that was constructed as part of the Phase 1 building and which will be partially relocated with the Phase 2 building, which allows for a buffer zone between this project and the existing Apollo Park. Mountain View is compatible with and sensitive to the character of the immediate environment and sets a precedent for future development in this neighborhood. It is consistent with this criteria. Path from Frontage Road down to the Gore Creek path. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Vail Mountain View Residences is adjacent to the 1-70 and South Frontage Road corridor to the north. To the south of the property is the Town of Vail stream tract, which is zoned NAPD. Properties further south of Gore Creek are r e s i d e n t i a l developments, typically townhouse development, zoned HDMF. Surrounding properties, including the Tyrolean, Apollo Park, and The Wren are all zoned HDMF. S. Front Rd -� Io Village Parking Structure Tyrolean Stream Tract A brief description of the adjacent residential uses is provided below: Apollo Park A&B 9 r The Wren 01,1 ^' The Tyrolean: There are 9 wholly owned units in the Tyrolean. The site is 0.368 acres. Parking is located within the building. 17 Apollo Park, Buildings A & B: There are 40 units within Buildings A & B of Apollo Park. Of the 40 units, 34 units are in interval ownership and the remaining 6 units are wholly owned, and the buildings sit on a ground lease. The site is 1.292 acres. The units were originally constructed in the early 1970s and exceeds the density allowance of the HDMF zone district. There are 42 surface parking spaces. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses, which include wholly owned condominiums, short-term rentals, and interval ownership, which are similar in character to the uses proposed. The proposed density is similar to that of the surrounding properties. As a result, Mountain View is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criteria. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project, both Phase I and 2 are in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10. Mountain View is required one loading berth to comply with Chapter 10 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. One berth is proposed, along with 2 short-term parking spaces (not included in the overall parking calculation) that can also be used for additional loading needs. The Town Code requires loading spaces to be 12 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14 ft. high. The dimensions of the berth provided is 10 ft. wide, 35 ft. long, and 14.5 ft. wide, a deviation of only 2 ft. in width. Due to the limited need for loading for this project, this berth is appropriate. However, this is a requested deviation as part of this SDD request. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: This property is subject to the Vail Village Master Plan. It is not subject to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan provides both general and specific guidance on the redevelopment of this property. The Vail Village Master Plan provides the following overall goals, objectives, and policies: GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. W Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. GOAL #5 INCREASE AND IMPROVE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities Policy 5.1.1: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policy 5.1.5: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. The Vail Village Master Plan encourages an increase in the number of residential units, especially for short term overnight accommodation. Mountain View Phase 2 includes the provision of 21 accommodation units. These are hotel room product available for short term overnight rentals. In addition, the project includes 12 dwelling units and 7 lock -off units, all of which will be able to participate in a voluntary short term rental program. The units have been designed to encourage participation for the dwelling units and the lock -offs. With the on-site management available for the accommodation units, participation in the short term rental program is anticipated to be high. With this project alone, there is an addition of 38 new units available for short term rental, which is a top priority of the Vail Village Master Plan. Along with encouraging the provision, the Vail Village Master plan recognizes the need for the development of employee housing in Vail Village. Mountain Example of quality of employee housing units proposed in Phase 2 19 View Phase 2 includes the provision of 9 deed -restricted employee housing units, well in excess of any requirements. An Employee Housing Plan is provided as part of this submittal, but to summarize the plan, the commercial linkage requirement of 2.94 employees can be converted to 350 sq. ft. per employee, resulting in a commercial linkage requirement of 1,029 sq. ft. Adding this to the inclusionary requirement of 2,903 sq. ft., the total employee housing requirement equates to 3,932 sq. ft. As proposed, there is 11,153 sq. ft. in 9 employee housing units, 7,221 sq. ft. in excess of the requirement. The proposed units average over 1,000 sq. ft. and are 2 -bedroom units, making them highly functional and useable, in addition to being of exceptionally high quality. This is unprecedented in a project in Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan also includes recommendations for building heights within Vail Village. The Master Plan states this with regard to the Building Height Plan: 3 LEGM .-------- 3.4 .w.w ware a aanw ,�n.r. now BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. 20 Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provideeg neral guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. nor VIEW CORRIDORS [ELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROADI y11P" ,Pi-� l 5 by BUILDING BUILDING MASSING [VILLAGE CORE SECTION[ HEIGHT PROFILE 1vu Hund PLM ,n n As indicated in the recommendations regarding building height, generally buildings are to be tallest along the South Frontage Road, then step down to lower heights within the Village Core. Buildings are generally shown to be 5-6 stories along the Frontage Road, though the building height shown for the infill of Apollo Park is indicated at 4 stories. The "Conceptual Building Height Plan" further describes a story as 9 ft. of height, not including the roof and indicates varied roof heights are desired. This building height limitation is challenging as the current description of a story as 9 ft. in height is generally considered outdated and produces undesirable units with very little head height, based on current market preferences. Vail Mountain View Phase 1 complies with the Conceptual Building Height Plan and HDMF zoning height restriction of 48 ft. This was appropriate due to its proximity to Gore Creek. However, Phase 2 is located primarily along the South Frontage Road and is a location where additional height is appropriate, as evidenced by recent SDD projects, including Solaris and the Sebastian. In general, Phase 2 complies with the 4 -story recommendation, but does include a portion of the existing parking structure which is slightly above grade. Along the South 21 Frontage Road, the building generally appears as a 4 -story building, with the 5th story within the roof structure, as a loft or dormer level. On the south elevation, facing Phase 1, the building is a 4 -story building, sitting on top of a partially exposed level of parking. The project generally complies with the Master Plan height recommendation, but exceeds the 48 ft. height limitation of the HDMF zone district. As a result, a deviation from the underlying zoning height restriction of 48 ft. is requested, though the project generally complies with the Building Height recommendations. The Vail Village Master Plan also provides an Action Plan, showing potential locations for development projects, as described below: FOTO PARK `o ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. 22 Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. The massive area of surface parking associated with Apollo Park and the Wren are indicted for "Residential/Lodging Infill." This is important to note, especially with regard to Apollo Park, in that the Action plan clearly shows additional residential development beyond what currently existed at Apollo Park, as Apollo Park already exceeded the density limitation of the HDMF zone district. Buildings C and D totaled 49 dwelling units, though only allowed 32 dwelling units by zoning. In fact, as proposed at 45.5 units (for Phase 1 and 2), the project is more in compliance with the underlying zoning with regard to density, though a deviation from this limitation is still required. The increase in density was clearly contemplated by the Vail Village Master Plan and therefore complies with the "Action Plan." Finally, the Vail Village Master Plan provides site specific recommendations for the various sub- areas of the Village. This property is within Sub -Area #9, East Frontage Road. The master plan states: EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the 23 Frontage Road, causing little vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking within the sub -area provide the opportunity for additional residential infill development. Given proper attention to design considerations, this sub -area could provide additional density within close proximity to the Village core. At the present time, the sub -area is separated from the Village core by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection with the Village and Ford Park -via the Village Streamwalk. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to Ford Park. The area between buildings and Gore Creek must be improved to enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede view corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70) to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/ shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road without jeopardizing future frontage road improvements. Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies that the large areas of surface parking provide opportunities for additional residential development. It recommends the construction of a sidewalk along the Frontage Road, connecting the parking structure with Ford Park, which has been completed. The plan also recommends that the height of buildings in this sub -area be limited to not impede view corridors from the Frontage Road to the Village and Vail Mountain. As indicated in this views from google earth, the Village is not visible at all from I-70 or the Frontage Road. Since 1990 when the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted, significant improvements in technology have allow architects to much more accurately reflect the views effected by proposed buildings. As indicated in this image, Vail Mountain remains visible with the proposed Phase 2. A Google Earth image street view from east -bound 1-70 with the proposed Phase 2 building shown. Google Earth image street view from S. Frontage Rd. with the proposed Phase 2 building shown. 24 Proposed Mountain View Phase 2 as viewed from west -bound 1-70 As recommended by the Vail Village Master Plan, all parking for the project is structured. As indicated on the landscape plan, significant landscaping is proposed along the north elevation, and the 20 ft. setback along this property is maintained. Overall, the proposed project complies and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan, and furthers the goals and objectives recommended by the plan. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project by Daiva Katieb of Watershed Environmental Consultants. The report addresses all environmental concerns, including climate, hydrology, atmospheric conditions, geology, wildlife, vegetation, wastes, noise, odors, and visual concerns. The report is included as part of this submittal, but to summarize, the report concludes the project is appropriate and without significant impacts to the environment. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The building is sited above the existing parking structure, utilizing generally the same access as currently exists to the structure. As a result, there is little disturbance to the site. While this SDD request includes a deviation from the site coverage limitation as a result of the underground parking structure, the project complies with site 25 coverage requirements for above -grade improvements and landscape area. When possible, existing landscaping is maintained, and none of the existing landscaping associated with Phase 1 will be modified with the construction of Phase 2. A landscape plan, prepared by Jamie McCluskie of MacDesign, has been included with the submittal. The plan focuses the landscaping along the South Frontage Road, providing a landscape buffer between the road and the units located on the first floor. The goal is to use ornamental grasses and brownstone boulders, similar to the landscape treatments at recent projects like First Chair and Solaris. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criteria. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: A traffic letter was prepared by Skip Hudson, P.E. of Turn Key Consulting, LLC. According to his analysis, the current CDOT Access Permit allows for more traffic than is generated by the proposed development. This is due to the fact that the leased parking facility will be converted to parking serving the uses onsite. In addition, the proposed use does not generate 20% more traffic than the current site use. As a result, the proposed Phase 2 does not require an additional CDOT Access Permit. The general circulation for vehicles is consistent with how the site functions currently. The site is accessed from the South Frontage Road, with vehicles entering the parking structure at two points, the further south garage entrance for Phase 1 and the north garage entrance beneath the porte cochere for Phase 2. There is also a loading space beneath the porte cochere, and 2 short- term parking spaces available for check -ins and for additional loading opportunities. The pedestrian circulation around the buildings includes a sidewalk connection from the Frontage Road, connecting down to the Gore Creek path. There is pedestrian circulation around the entirety of the site, allowing for direct access from multiple points to the Gore Creek path. There is also a sidewalk along the South pedestrians access over to Ford Park. Sidewalk along South Frontage Road Pedestrian connection between the Tyrolean & Phase 1 Frontage Road, giving 26 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by MacDesign with an eye towards functionality, preserving natural features, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. Through the use of ornamental grasses and brownstone' boulders, the entry is given prominence. Minimal amounts of sod are proposed along the more formal interface with the sidewalk along the S. Frontage Road. When possible, the existing landscaping is preserved, as most of it was planted with the 2006 Phase 1 development. The existing paver pattern is proposed to be continued, creating cohesion between Phase 1 and Phase 2. ~~ t The project complies with the underlying zoning requirements with any need fora deviation. As a result, the proposed Pedestrian path and buffer zone between Phase 1 & landscape plan is consistent with this criteria. Apollo Park 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The project will be completed in one phase. 27 � � � � � LLI M� 0 19 L LU ± E < < 2 2 e Of e uLU ±z JE <u ±e ± <Z FQ± ±ted mJ/ƒ§FD\ @/ ® IO -)Oo IE I/E \2422-E2 FD< / \\ i\z/b 4//\E/ z3/zOEO< \\ ±m LU F co CO \F co �� 0 Lu /LU \\\_/ co �/\� \\\ Fz ±0 00»29 Of I--- �LU z/z6> e<¥ 22 LLI cƒ ±<o±E eƒwee\ </j\E\z/ e/o z \m //j/E \ee>\� - -i co Elf<Of D 0 -LU-< /z/ 00 0wwcoo /< \\<co0 CO LL C)���\ �Z LU �) o\ m_e oCO E/iLUD< \\ƒtee/ ��i\/?-® \F< <2 »±>um2Lu 2= e//zzLUZF EOf/* Ozo \/ z \/c) Lu[iLL f \///�W\�*%\\/ƒ�} /\\ k& 9kE//�R�epLL1: �//j1: \/ƒ �\ zFLu0-m\§b/}�©u�$ ±E\b/e /0 /2 u<2I12±E2E<4o of o<io\§/±>e C) iz \<co - /\\ƒ0<:1\F///\<(D0 <w �/ E> ± 4zzz-e <_®� CORER<e-o®E® zm //\�/oO\\bWE/�}\<W/\/ƒ\\ƒ\\/2kƒ /\\/F ---_j //%/\\//\///a -Z < < ®///33</��/7F<F0,5/\0/<� F 0®w� EE/\E\*\�\\//E�/\\E�/0E��/\_///\ � OOOOOO///ƒ<Ooowz}/E-D 5F 0z�E/\\COQ oOOOoO@<WF ww0E«mEmlma0WLLF0<4o & a s 0 d & e E \E z z > 0 \ /\\ �A/ ,ry ,w 0 ,LL 0 0 ,ry �i �i JW 2 H m WO LU W --- W w w LU J m OU O W W J_ LU Lu O O H O L _Ji N N�in NLU m O7777777 I T T z = D z z ❑ F- Y z > J Y IP -7-i LU I z ❑ Z Z 2 F1 I Y 0 El El 1E] Al 11 1E] D U) Z J U) 0�3: c J w 0 Q Q W = El El El El IF] O aJ W W W W W 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 z Q � 50 W Q 0� J Q U) 0� Q CU 3 J W Q � W = El El El El El Q m I OOOPP' C, • soop N w / J (n W , • • — —, Ors0000i N w I / i / LL I IILU 0)W M I~ O � =col M / � w J (n F o =M - I - - — — — 00 "'LL J (n F -(D 0(l) w W H $ M I La �w o J M W ap Minh= M LL - _ W� 2 M I LL I mml _ Co ff— — — U LL I'I I 0 LA Di Z � � W Q o J U) (6 J OU � � � (n W 2 LJ El El El El El I W 0 ow M I CD O I LU I I 0 w t La 0 0 co M f(0 O W W 0 IF W W W O 0 W IL a V N D Z J 0 0 co N v 0) I00 00 W 00 U � 0 + N Ile N W 0 LL 0 0 I - (0 L? W W boLO zIle \\�/ U W 0 I I LL 0 0 � I I • I I I I I N 00 L I 0 C'4 W LOU N 00 I� �I m co F- F- CL CL rq C4 OD 04 'IJ 4 - Ln 4 - Ln LncoE cr- r-� cn •� w --I 00 CINI 5— 00 ram _ 00 � LLi Li C� IZT rr r -I x-" I bJD 0 CA r,4 •�00 OD_ 7 cu Ln ■� C'4 CV (� LL Lu Ln Ln [J f co CV 00 C� uu w � O'D N 00 N O O V LU Z O co� w ow wz 0� O _)- (-) ry Z Z Q 0 O Q O N N (o N V 0 ro 'i W D a Z N Z D N Z a J IL W H N N 0 ro CL ea W D a Z N Z D N Z a J IL W H N 0 0 co 0 ro d E E N W D a Z N Z D N Z a J IL W H N 0 ro d W D a Z N Z D N Z a J IL W H N N wr..# I AW Ift, Lip 4 11. w N m LLQ H Ln Q0 m TT U') u U ~ (6 O C cu N U N O L N U ° �L+ L U) U U U C cu -0 L° O O N C O O •� cz O= C UO O Q L� a ��� •� �L (6 N (U6 - UO Y•jL CO O E �•� L j j O � � 2f =_ � � +J � •V O O — ,� � O L C � N 7 p _0N V O L U 7 (6 N O U N N U L � O i � � L � C •L m � m _ L E V C � L 7 C Q- C � 0--o L � Q Q � •� �� _ L = N CYC N`/ m � o O� (6 � °,•� a O� �, o� U — O O co 0 0 ° O ° N N a L O Q O X N 0 J ca Q U 70 O� d dL m UL _0 =5H U > U) CO Q' Q Q > Q r N O N Cl LO > Lfi CO 06 C L (6 O 5 L ° -OC O N O U6 O N U) U) ti C13 C\j U Q C E E a)O C C Q 0r U C LO N Q C QCL L 0 U) O •° c > L o N N > CC: c U U N V O (6 � '� •� NO C � (0 � c0 1E 0 U NOQ O U U _ X O O 0) U) O 76 7 -0 L O + 2 C U N 70 "6 5_ c>6 U N LO C 0 O �_ L C O _O .0 `•� C Q- L CC C U) U (0 N N C N to N C -O O C t6 •C7 LU ^' O a) O -a Y .U)•> N (6 U) m C L N C L L O w U U co U U) O _ O 4? 07 U ca L _0O O (6 L "a C O V c0 O cu U) u) p O O CL m U a) C O 16 D CL Q W _� o W O ; LL O L C N (6 O •L p C O L U ❑ O 0- co LO 0 U N •O -a •> C Q N O N C U) p N L > L � CUU p a O ° O U) C ca O C U Q O m i .� -a m •� .� O U 0) m V) U) U) �O O C O C (� i U) VJ ❑ O O aL+ 0 -a O = O O U) N C c6 ca C U NU) > ) M N _ NN a> � . (LCU U) O — 6 _N0 X O NU •X cU_no 10 C L N C — O O_C 7 O O N u) O cn v n a O COUO C C U) O S M D D� (Da U a p L U 6 C O N 70 C L O O E O -aO p U) O 2 • - U m _ _O 0 O O s Co -0 O U � C O °O (n O O N U > U) C C U) E C C U >' C C _� C U UO (6 cm N M'- > O N O n O C co O a O _0) C a)O �5 O E ui O E upi O U U) C_ E > O C " CT >W m > 6 (D U) _O L U) N L U (6 L O _ 06 H — Mo C� > U) UL N — Q N E N C Un lA C> p U) 0N - Q•— ' N U) — O •L QQ U OO m cc m � mc >0 6 Q O y C ° .2 L C r_ p •7 O U) O ui 2— In -0 O Q L N O O C Q O �••� Q p (6 •U) tb � U Q N O Q O L 2) C (a C C O LO C C ._ N (0 a-- O O Q L .� O O m m ca U) � .° N O U) n _> C C O 0- U) L <) <) C U L p U C ca L •� ...1 U OU O N p _ Q N O c0 Y Y O (6 C O N O Y p❑ L= E N p o- C O C O L O c0 u C O Q L F N Q O Q- N .. � 0 m C I��\111II ■n �� X111: fi� I,t��?r�i/,\,�-1\ �:�-• Rim ism I J, 10 l/.'11:'�_I.�W -M/// O /000r- Lf qqC� +, 0000(-0 N Ali Q) Q E 0 0 T. C Q 0 � � U 0 QU ��(n 0 O —1 10 l/.'11:'�_I.�W -M/// Ali I c. O---' -' N a J lov r v� -------''------- - \ \ � 1 V � V 1 V I LLI DA v r �✓ z Q�N�,� v Q r n�rr vuo IX () W U Z W C, Cf) Y W W W Of W U LLJ > 0-1 z_ O Q ~ Z Z O O rz0 r r J 0 r r / (_ A", � i irr A �o. 813S o G ONlolln8 G�� o oN -L N3W3S y3 N NOl-L nO&oa3oNn A dM -�0-13918 _ iS�Nl�b38 3N3 SS0a0 A OH / 3 "91,99 SISVS) / 6p N 7 .6� •1L / n / D 3 D / I Z ~W p Z Z Z Z N O N O Z O O J O N T .a� m0 ~ ��Q =0 N �� ~p HO T WAN OU �W NO Qm + +\ + + �' JF— LLI �W WFyW mU U W0 Q W U m of + + + + +\UQw >UOw o00 `+ + + + + , wofU)V)n ofofc)U) LLJ �Z� F-r� ri \+ + + + + I >` --OWN W CNO^H + + + + + J :2 LO QW CN LLJ + + + + + mQO V)00 = + + + + + z=z a0 cn + + + + of W�oz 1TO L L - M„L0,8Z. LOS � w o w°=� 7 ���'6-b) U z 41zZ14/ F— < J + aoa� '7 w� w _ N > w N 0 > U O W w w + ���� / WOf /OU 0 W CAD M CAD 00 f C\ CO ����/ / ��C> 14i / mL`� OOOJ cc) 4/p C �� ryQ2 ZOm c� x/04 V °p O 2 ��� V= 04 'T, --D �� O� �Ij 4 O \-:- c U Jj141 IV Cl � LO O N w w >W = n, Cf) U) Z00�w O Q '— 0-) / 0 NI ,Aov e13S 9Nicnin8__ j r N N 00 II w J W ,Z'-vZ Q C9 I N a 0 z m w O L� �0 O V) N 00 c II W 3: LLJ O —1 J W I 3 w w 3: C14 W (.0 Q i-co0� U !n O� LLJ z Cr O o rn J N M M m Q w m D � CO W � M Uj F Z Z co w0 w O N , l9'0 L l — 3„10,8Ze lON Z o 00 + + J + Z 0 L (O 0) LO °00 C9 W w 06 7:4 J W O O+ (n + + + + + + + + + + +/ N W w4-Lncor- + + + Z N N N N + + + J W W W W ,Z'-vZ Q C9 I N a 0 z m w O L� �0 O V) N 00 c II W 3: LLJ O —1 J W I 0 0 LO I w 1� 0 LO ;n r U) IJ U Z W Cf) Y IJ w W ry W C) >w ry / `9z C14 W (.0 Q LLj C14 U !n O� o ao Fyz w0 D � W � W C-) r w0 O N , l9'0 L l — 3„10,8Ze lON o 00 + + + + o 0 O O+ N + + + + + + + + + + +/ N cl + + + + + + 0 W+ + + + + + + (f)LLJ Z ih + + + + + + + + O Z 6i M CO + + + + + + + + + z W w Q s +++++++++ V o � m c� +++++++++++++++/ Y w< = Z N + + + + + + + G�W � co ; M p M O) N CO O Ln n O O) O O M pO) O Ln O) O O) N M N N N M N rM N M M (n (n Z Z Z (n Z Z (n Z (n Z (n O I� 74- M O O� N 7 M C) O O Ln Ln m M M m r r -"d: M N pp 0 N � M � In � O It r- � w � m It O M M N Ln M Ln LO WWWWWWWWWLLI W W W Z(nOU W OU Yo MwwV) J 0 of U Q cn a >W of L9'0 L L - ll)„L0,8Z. LOS m i / J J 6 ' O O c6 m 40, F,O 1 W FN 0000 /I .v O 11)/O N N 00 y O N (14 00 of W I W J U J (' Z_ J_ D m Q U) U F -- -i [-- Q 0 Q U Q V U U Q Q n > rt of z N S OC 00-_ j \ �0Q0N0 \ro LLJ of ll zW M 0 :2 \m O m i / J J 6 ' O O c6 m 40, F,O 1 W FN 0000 /I .v O 11)/O N N 00 y O N (14 00 of W I W J U J (' Z_ J_ D m Q U) U F -- -i [-- Q 0 Q U Q V U U Q Q n > rt H Z J QZ UO af�: Waf 20 20- 0 UO W li 0 OZ u)0 'O -m iZ JD H Oj W OQ DU 0T mW Z� O� LL0 00 2Z O OF Haf 00 ma N N OD N I N 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N N m 6Q m0 Zaf DW LL2 02 O 20 OZ �0 OF m� O d N ED Z O H N of O m d Q N N OD N L6 N ro to E6 N OD J J W O a- 0 O M O N N 00 N OD H Z O� W OJ ZQ �U O mW Z� O� LL0 OU 2Z O OF It 00 ma O N OD 0 O N N m Z N w� W � OQ -)U 0 O mW Z2 02 N o0 ro 2Z O O� �af 00 ma ED Z O H N of O m d Q N N OD N L6 N ro to E6 N OD J J W O a- 0 O M O N N 00 N OD H Z O� W OJ ZQ �U O mW Z� O� LL0 OU 2Z O OF It 00 ma O N OD 0 O N N m co �0 0 U 9'Z L R> J 0'2 L m i ,L'9 L ,0'8 L m o M 1 D� of Io -- w w N O ❑r7 09L 0 � Q � m M � N O w m L'9 � O w _w o circ 0 U W �a z� U Z W Of �a 0 U m m M. K o>, 'M I r. to Y. OLq o Oj 8'S � O ob� U 06 n 0081 O C j coO (� 0 O 0.81 LL O COLLI �i M OD O N 0 Qw H U LO 0't N J Z � N �Z O LL co O co ^ M o II NV U v0 w J� o a � wt) J M OD O N N O N m m � m m � m m t m m m m m m L LO 0't S•L Z 6 N W p LL co O co ^ O II N v0 U wt) J O W J W LL: > W W J Q W m L r m O 1 W O N O N m m � m m � m m t m m m m m m Vail Village Master Plan VI. ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS The Illustrative Plans provide an overview of the long range goals and objectives for future development of the Village. Each plan depicts a key element that contributes to the character and function of Vail Village. These elements include land use, open space, circulation and building heights. Together these plans reflect the Master Plan's goals, objectives and policy statements. They provide the criteria for evaluating development proposals and planning for future public improvements. A summary plan, referred to as the Action Plan, is a composite of the identified changes end improvements from each of the Illustrative Plans. The Action Plan graphically summarizes proposed public and private sector changes for Vail Village. LAND USE PLAN There is a well-defined overall pattern of land use throughout the Village that establishes one of its more pleasant characteristics. The greatest variety and intensity of uses are found within the Village Core Area and along the pedestrian ways of East Meadow Drive. The mixed use character of these areas make significant contributions to the vitality of the pedestrian experience in the Village. Land uses surrounding these areas are predominantly residential with a mixture of lodging, condominium, and low density residential development. Other land use designations in the Village include heavy service, public facility/parking, and ski base/recreation. Maintaining the general pattern of existing land uses is a stated goal for Vail Village. While some changes in land use are indicated by this Plan, they respect the existing character that has been established throughout the Village. Changes to existing land uses have been recommended in response to other goals of The Village Plan. Specific improvements and developments associated with these changes in land use are expressed in greater detail on the Action Plan and in the Sub -Area section of this Plan. Land use categories in Vail Village include the following: Low Density Residential: The Mill Creek Circle area was the initial subdivision of Vail and is the only neighborhood in the Village made up of exclusively low density residential development. Development in this land use category is limited to two units per lot. There are a total of 19 duplex zoned lots comprising approximately 6.5 acres in this land use category. Medium/High Density Residential: The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. Approximately 1,100 units have been developed on the 27 acres of private land in this category. In addition, another 110 units are approved but unbuilt. It is a goal of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail". Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail and a limited amount of office use -are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. Ski Base/Recreation: Located at the base of Vail Mountain in the Golden Peak area and immediately adjacent to Vail Village, this designation is intended to provide for the facilities and services inherent to the operation of a ski area. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient, and aesthetically -pleasing transition between the ski mountain and surrounding land use categories. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Ski Base/Recreation land use category may include skier and resort services, ski lifts, ski trails, base facilities, public restrooms, ticket sales, clubs, public plazas, outdoor cultural/art events and sports venue, open spaces, parking and loading/delivery facilities, and residential, retail, and restaurant uses. Public Facility/Parking: The only property in this category is the Town -owned parking structure and adjacent surface parking lot. Existing uses include: public and charter bus parking, transportation 16 Vail Village Master Plan facilities and a limited amount of office and retail activity. Potential changes to the character of these uses would be the introduction of other public purpose activities such as a visitor center, performing arts center, etc. OPEN SPACE PLAN Four different classifications of open space are indicated on the Open Space Plan. The types of open space vary from greenbelt natural open space to the more urbanized open space created by the Village's numerous public plazas. While the role of each of these forms of open space varies, they all contribute to the recreational, aesthetic, and environmental features of the Village. For the purposes of this Plan, open space is defined as conditions at the existing natural grade of the land. The following further defines each of these four types of open space: Greenbelt Natural Open Space: Greenbelt Natural Open space is designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas from the development of structures and to preserve open space in its natural state. Areas designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space are dominated on the south by undeveloped portions of Vail Mountain adjacent to the Village. Stream tracts in the Village are also designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space. Development in these areas is limited to recreation related amenities such as ski base facilities, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, and passive recreation areas. Parks: Parks occur on publicly owned or leased land and are developed to varying degrees. A. Ford Park is a major park facility located at the easterly edge of the Village. It provides recreational activity for the entire community with a variety of developed improvements, including structures, and less developed open areas. B. Active Recreation areas such as tennis courts and tot lots provide opportunities for specific recreational activity on sites with developed improvements. C. A number of pocket parks are either existing or planned throughout Vail Village. Pocket parks provide valuable open space for both active and passive recreation as well as contrast from the built environment. Planted Buffers: Planted buffers provide visual relief from roadways and surface parking areas and establish entry ways into the Village. Buffers indicated on this Plan are important landscape features and should generally be preserved. Plazas with Greenspace: Plazas with greenspace are "urban open space." They contribute significantly to the streetscape fabric of the Village. Formed in large part by the buildings and spaces around them, plazas with greenspace provide relief from the built environment, a place for people to gather or relax, areas for special entertainment or other activities and possible location for landscaping, water features, benches and public art. PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLAN The Parking and Circulation Plan recognizes the established pattern of parking and circulation throughout Vail Village. The parking and circulation system is an important element in maintaining the pedestrianized character of the Village. This is accomplished by limiting vehicular access at strategic points, while allowing for necessary operations such as bus service, loading/delivery and emergency vehicle access. The Town's bus system is crucial to controlling and limiting vehicular access to Vail Village. The bus system greatly reduces the reliance on private automobiles, resulting in a reduction of vehicular traffic in the Village's pedestrianized areas. 17 Vail Village Master Plan Aesthetic, as well as functional considerations are important to the Village's circulation system. A long standing goal for the Village has been to improve the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. As a result, the irregular street pattern in the Village has been enhanced with, numerous pedestrian connections linking "plazas with greenspace" and other forms of open space. Located in and along this network are most of the Village's retail and entertainment activities. While the majority of the circulation system within the Village is in place, a number of major improvements are proposed to reinforce and increase existing pedestrian connections, facilitate access to public land along stream tracts, and further reduce vehicular activity in the core area. BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN Generally speaking, it is the goal of this Plan to maintain -the concentration of low scale buildings in the core area while positioning larger buildings along the northern periphery (along the Frontage Road), as depicted in the Building Height Profile Plan. This pattern has already been established and -in some cases these larger structures along, the Frontage Road serve to frame views over Vail Village to Vail Mountain. The Building Height Plan also strives, in some areas, to preserve major views from public right-of-ways. Building heights greatly influence the character of the built environment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to four stories establish a pleasing human scale. The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact and the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Specific design considerations on building heights are found in the Sub -Area section of this -Plan and in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. ACTION PLAN The Action Plan indicates potential development and improvement projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The Action Plan is a composite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Areas identified by the Plan as having potential for additional development have previously received Town approvals or have been recognized as being consistent with the various elements of the Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of improvements, which may occur, or an indication of Town approval for any specific development proposals. The review of any development proposal will be based upon compliance with all relative elements of the Village Master Plan. Numerical references found on the Action Plan map refer to more detailed descriptions of proposed improvements, located in the Sub -area section of this Plan. These descriptions provide a detailed account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations relative to each of the development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to represent design solutions. Sub -area concepts, applicable goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, zoning standards and design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan are the criteria for evaluating any development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and other applicable private property owners. 18 Vail Village Master Plan L o. IAN �411 7 il!'. Itfl If 19 Vail Village Master Plan 20 V, it Village Master Plan zz r. Z- I p -9*7 21 rV —CYMVn 21 Vail Village Master Plan Ott �• ; i�� A6 1�j cv Al d Pia J �l :l l Vail Village Master Plan 0 LIN 0 0 oG w C� a z 0 cc U- 2 2 cc LL 0 a J w W cc 0 0 0 U W_ 0 "I 46 0 23 III z�6 o�66 1 �_�� - < m=� z 0 U w w cc 0 w t� J J z_ t!a a 0 z O 5 m Vail Village Master Plan sem. �. NiAl! i - r i i l r r t •'i''I'�irlr'i ji. 1 • r" - r sem. �. NiAl! i - r i i r r t •'i''I'�irlr'i ji. i ���• j �+il��'Mi r3� � '' r P7 � f rhe l oil J lfr 1 . �'�r .i. it ■ 5 24 i Vail Village Master Plan VII. VAIL VILLAGE SUB -AREAS A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole and at the same time be sensitive to the opportunities and constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. To facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the Village, ten different sub -areas are delineated in this Plan. Sub -areas were determined based on a number of different considerations. Foremost among these were: • design and site characteristics • geographic or physical boundaries • land uses and ownership patterns Each of the ten sub -areas have been evaluated relative to the overall goals, objectives, and policies outlined for Vail Village. The potential improvement projects, referred to as sub -area concepts, which have emerged from this evaluation are graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub -area concepts are physical improvements intended to reinforce the desired physical form of the Village as outlined in the various elements of the Master Plan. The 10 sub -areas (which follow), provide detailed descriptions of each sub -area concept and express the relationship between the specific sub -area concepts and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis." The sub -area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub -area concepts does not assure development approval by the Town. It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub -area concepts. 25 Vail Villa2e Master Plan EAST FRONTAGE ROAD SUB -AREA (#9) The East Frontage Road Sub -Area is comprised of condominium and time share residential development. This sub -area is unique in that its access is directly off of the Frontage Road, causing |hde vehicular impact on other areas of the Village. Large areas of surface parking VvbhiD the sub- area provide the opportunity for additional R*e|denUa| infill development. Given proper attention to design considaratiunG, this sub -area could provide additional density within close prV*jOmdv to the Village core. At the present tirne, the sub -area is separated from the Village more by Gore Creek. This sub -area has a pedestrian connection with the Village and Ford Park -via the Village StnearnVva|h. Asidewalk along the Frontage Road should beconstructed to improve pedestrian safety and further connect the Village parking structure to FnKJ Park, The area between buildings and Gore Creek nlUSt beimproved b3enhance natural environment. #9-1 Parking Lot Infill Residential infill over existing surface parking. Height of building to be limited so as to not impede vhaVx corridors from the frontage road (and Interstate 70to the Village and Vail Mountain. Mass of buildings to Step back from the Frontage Road to prevent sun/shade impacts on the road. Satisfying parking demand on site will necessitate structured parking. A substantial landscape buffer shall be provided between any new development and the Frontage Road vv|thqWt jeopardizing future frontage road inlpFOx8rDeD(s. Special emphasis on 1.2. 2.3, 2.8, 3.1' 51 Obiective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Policy 1.2._2Development and improvement projects shall be coordinated to minimize the unintended negative consequences associated with construction activity in a pedestrianized, commercial area. For instance, the noise abatement, project completion guarantees, temporary parking, traffic control, etc. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2,3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1: 'Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. Policy 3.1.2: Public art and other similar landmark features shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. Policy 3.1.3. Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. Qbiective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Policy 3.4.1: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. Policy 3.4.2: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Policy 3.4.3: The "privatization" of the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be strongly discouraged. Policy 3.4.4: Encroachment of private improvements on the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract shall be prohibited. Policy 3.4.5: The Town shall require the removal of existing improvements constructed without the Town's consent within the town -owned Gore Creek stream tract. Obiective 5.4: Improve the streetscape circulation corridors throughout the Village. Policy 6.4.1: The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Highways toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road. Policy 6.4.2: Medians and right -of -ways shall be landscaped. Obiective 6.11: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. TOWN OF VAIO VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 24, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Traffic I mpact Fee, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Transportation_Impact_Fee_Memo 4-24-17_(2).pdf PEC 17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Staff Memo 2017-03-10_VailTransplmpactFeeDRAFT STUDY.pdf PEC17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Study Public—Comments Combined.pdf PEC17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Public Comments Transportation_Impact_Fee- PEC17-0008 Traffic Impact Fee Draft Ordinance ORD I NANCE_0041817.pdf W1171 Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Public Works Department Date: April 24, 2017 Subject: Vail Transportation Impact Fee Code Amendments I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail has hired the consulting firm TischlerBise to develop an updated transportation impact fee. The impact fee is intended to codify the current traffic mitigation fee, help fund future transportation related projects as identified in the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and allow new development to "pay its way". The Vail Transportation Impact Fee is intended to be adopted by the Town Council by amending Title 12 of the Town Code with a new chapter, see attached draft ordinance. Over the past year there have been multiple discussions with the Town Council regarding the codification of a Transportation Impact Fee; January 2016: Review of the current traffic mitigation fee and the previous effort to codify a Traffic Impact Fee in 2009, and next steps to reengage codification. June 2016: Discussion with consultant, TischlerBise, regarding; • What is a traffic impact fee? • Why implement a traffic impact fee? • What's wrong with our current mitigation fees? • Can the Town waive fees for certain types of developments? November 2016: Review and confirmation of the Transportation Master Plan capital project list and to what extent (percentage) a transportation impact fee can fund projects. January 2017: Presentation by TischlerBise of the draft schedule of Transportation Impact Fees based on the completed Nexus Study. February 2017: Review and discussion of Impact Fee, capital projects list & Fee implementation And most recently, a Public Information Meeting was held on March 15, 2017. At this public meeting, staff received a few comments regarding the proposed fee. Generally the comments were that this was an additional burden and targeted fee on new development, and that it is counter intuitive to some of the employee housing, hotel, and commercial development goals the Town generally embraces; and that we would be better off dispersing the cost over a broader base with an increase in sales tax. II. BACKGROUND A transportation impact fee is a development fee assessed to offset costs that a jurisdiction will incur to improve transportation infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from proposed new developments. 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 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 TischlerBise 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 Town Council at the time did not deem it appropriate to burden developers with additional fees due to the economic downturn. The nexus study proposed to codify a traffic impact fee based on proposed square footage and net new unit increases 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 2009 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. Since the 2009 traffic impact fee was not codified, the town has continued to rely on developer improvement agreements and has not increased the mitigation fee of $6500 per net new PM vehicular trip generated. 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 most recently the Vail Valley Medical Center in 2015. Each used the 2006 fee of $6500 per net new PM peak hour vehicular trip. The VVMC has agreed to pay any new Transportation Impact Fee adopted prior to the start of construction of the East Phase of the VVMC development. With the resurgence in redevelopment, and the Town's outdated mitigation fee, Council has requested that the Town adopt an updated Transportation Impact Fee. This past March TischlerBise updated the Transportation Impact Fee Study and presented it to Council. Town of Vail Page 2 Staff will review the fee schedule as well as common questions regarding a Transportation Impact Fee; 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 projects will 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 are fee waivers implemented and how do waivers affect the fees for others? • What are other Colorado communities doing regarding traffic impact fees? • Do most communities have a fee that increases with construction cost indexes or inflation or are they constant? • What is the Schedule and Process? III. VAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS As a part of the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan and the 2009 Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study the Town identified a list of anticipated transportation capital projects that would accommodate projected growth. The project list and projected development growth has been recently updated, and now includes pedestrian and transit oriented projects. The preliminary total 2016 estimated cost of these multimodal projects is approximately $95M. The cost of these improvements (See Attached) is anticipated to be partially offset by the development of approximately 2000 new units and approximately 500,000 square feet of new commercial that is projected for the future of Vail (See Attached). The project list has broken down the associated fiscal responsibilities, and split them between project specific costs, transportation impact fee costs, and Town of Vail costs or other revenue sources. In order to implement a transportation impact fee, the anticipated transportation projects have been split into two categories, Project level and System level improvements. Project level improvements are directly related to an individual development and its required access. These types of Project level improvements are generally paid for by the individual development. System level improvements enhance the carrying capacity of the transportation network system wide and benefit multiple developments. System level improvements directly benefit new development and may also benefit existing users. The Vail Transportation Master Plan Project List includes both Project level and System level improvements, and of the total $95M of total project costs, approximately $20M is considered Project level, and approximately $75M is considered System level. The majority, 72% or $54M, of the $75M of total System Level project costs will need to be funded by the Town of Vail or other revenue resources; while 28% or $21 M should Town of Vail Page 3 be funded by the Transportation Impact Fee. The anticipated Project Level project would be paid 100% by the specific project developments, $20M. IV. DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TischlerBise has provided an updated nexus study, The Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, and draft fee schedule for the Town's review. The draft fee schedule is based on anticipated future development, the current estimated cost of the capital projects to accommodate future development, and the appropriate proportioned fiscal responsibility. The proposed draft fee schedule is below; Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential er housing unit Attached in Core Areaall sizes $5,960 Attached Outside Core all sizes $7,450 Detached 2099 or less $8,195 Detached 2100 to 2599 $8,444 Detached 2600 to 3099 $8,692 Detached 3100 to 3599 $9,189 Detached 3600 to 4099 $9,437 Detached 4100 to 4599 $9,686 Detached 4600 to 5099 $9,934 Detached 5100 to 5599 $10,182 Detached 5600 to 6099 $10,182 Detached 6100 or more $10,431 Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area $5,960 Hotel Outside Core $7,450 Nonresidential (per square foot of floor area) Commercial $13.90 Hospital $9.93 Office & Other Services $6.20 For comparison, the following cities and counties have adopted impact fees shown within the table below. The closest relating community to Vail is Pitkin County which last had its Road Impact Fee updated in 2013. Town of Vail Page 4 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison National Average (1 li Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2 Proposed Outside Core Area (2) Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) Per Housing Unit Per 1, 000 Sp Ft )Ingle I-amuy multifamily Ketaii ujjice $3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 porated Areas in Colorado $2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 $6,217 $4,095 .. $8,113 $10,569 $5,977 $9,685 not applicablel $5,960 1 $13,900 1 $6,200 $9,686 1 $7,450 $13,900 $6,200 Counties in Colorado $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes Z000square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100, 000 square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4, 000squarefeet. * 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 If the presented Vail Transportation Impact Fee is adopted the following is a projection of the amount of funding that would be generated by each development type: Development Type Additional Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 1 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 1 3% Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Detached Housing Units 120 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 Commercial KSF 320 Hospital KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 Total => $20,798,000 100% Town of Vail Page 5 V. RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN As identified within Appendix B of the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, the following are the highlights of the suggested implementation and administration of this fee, and are incorporated within the Code amendments attached; • Upon codification of the fee, Town staff will administer the fee in accordance with the terms and conditions as provided for in the amended Town Code, Section 12-26. The fee shall apply to all development and redevelopment with the following exemption; o Remodels of Detached Single Family Residence that do not increase GRFA. o Redevelopments of detached Single Family residential remodels that increase GRFA by less than 50% are not defined by the Town Code as Demo/Rebuilds; o Employee Housing Units The fee rate schedule will be adopted by Resolution and will be updated on a yearly basis as needed, based on updated cost estimates of the identified capital projects. Project level improvements shall not be eligible for credits towards the impact fee, however if a development constructs a system improvement on the capital improvement list a credit and/or reimbursement may be provided to the developer for the amount of construction up to the amount shown within the capital improvement project list. VI. ATTACHMENTS Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 10, 2017 Public Comments Received to Date Draft Ordinance Title 12-26 Town of Vail Page 6 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................2 COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION..................................................................................................................2 ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES........................................................................................................................................2 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL...................................................................................................................4 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area........................................................................................5 LOWERFEES IN CORE AREA.............................................................................................................................................5 Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas....................................................................................5 Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas.................................................................................................................6 Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas....................................................................................................................6 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES...............................................................................................................7 Figure 2 — Transportation Impact Fee Comparison..............................................................................................8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................9 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula..........................................................................................................9 TRIPGENERATION........................................................................................................................................................10 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail..............................................................................................10 Figure 4 —Summary of Projected Travel Demand..............................................................................................11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................11 Figure 5 —Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share........................................................12 CREDITFOR OTHER REVENUES.......................................................................................................................................13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES..........................................................................................13 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables.......................................................................................14 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES..................................................................................................15 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule.................................................................................................15 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS....................................................................................16 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection.........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA...................................................................................................................17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING.............................................................................................................17 Figure Al — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House................................................18 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF DETACHED HOUSING.................................................................................................19 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet..................................................................................20 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION................................................................................... 21 CREDITSAND REIMBURSEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................21 TOWN -WIDE SERVICE AREA...........................................................................................................................................21 DEVELOPMENTCATEGORIES...........................................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 23 Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 INTRODUCTION Although Colorado is a "home -rule" state and home -rule municipalities were already collecting "impact fees" under their home -rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below. Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements 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 local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state's particular laws. 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". An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project - level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. Project -level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado's statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without 2 TlschlerBlse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development - related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development -related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in 3 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's vehicular trip generation rate). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and "complete street" improvements to provide multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non -impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. 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. 4 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area Lower Fees in Core Area Development of attached housing units and hotels 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. This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of "D" variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman, Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011). Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer 5 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015) developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They recommend mode -share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre, which serves as a proxy for urban form. Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human -scale design features encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle -powered mobility. A study titled "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" documented auto trips for infill development averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within the core area of Vail. Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas Mixed land use and better job -housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey - to -work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs -housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity (Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007). Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of "internal capture" (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a study titled "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs -housing balance, credit can be given for local -serving retail. Urban, transit -oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area (Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003). The report "Driving and the Built Environment" (TRB 2009) found a strong link between development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 6 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 study titled "Crediting Low -Traffic Developments" (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005). 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 detached house assumes construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000 square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for nonresidential development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. 1 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) 7 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 2 - Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Per Housing Unit Per 1,000 Sq Ft Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2, 000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100, 000 square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000squarefeet. * 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 8 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Single Family Multifamily Hetail Unice National Average (1) $3,228 1 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Incorporated Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2)1 Proposed Outside Core Area (2) Areas in Colorado $2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823 $6,217 $4,095 $8,113 $5,977 $0 $2,366 not applicablel $5,960 1 $13,900 1 $6,200 $9,686 1 $7,450 1 $13,900 $6,200 Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) Counties in Colorado $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2, 000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100, 000 square feet of floor area. (2) Tischler8ise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000squarefeet. * 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 8 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 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 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 9 TlschlerBlse FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method, with one cost recovery item for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak -hour trips. 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 allocated to 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 agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail 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, updated 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 2040. 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. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 10 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand Development Type Additional Development Units (2) Inbound Trip Rate per Development Unit (3) Additional PM -Peak Inbound Trips Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 0.24 169 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 0.30 166 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 0.24 10 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 0.30 93 Detached Housing Units 120 0.39 47 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 0.24 65 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 0.30 31 Commercial KSF (1) 320 0.56 179 Hospital KSF (1) 140 0.40 56 Office & Other Services KSF (1) 88 0.25 22 TOTAL => 838 (1) KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and Town staff (12/06/16). (3) Trip generation rates are from Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan, except detached housing rate, which is derived from ITE formulas and data. 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 and updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees, based on the expected increase in vehicular trips. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 11 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 5 - Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share Transportation Improvements Estimated Project- System -Level Improvements Percent Funded By Impact Fee Percent Other Revenue Cost by Impact Fee Cost by Other Revenue Town of Vail, Colorado Cost (Millions) Level Cost ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION West Vail Commercial A $ 6.70 $ 6.70 0% 0% $ - $ - Roundabout & Medians B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 52% 48% $ 0.62 $ 0.58 Buffehr Creek NRT connection to C $ 0.50 $ 0.50 0% 0% $ - $ - Marriott Roost D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ $ E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ $ - F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes $ 1.20 $ 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 H Main Vail North Roundabout $ 5.60 $ 35% 65% $ 1.98 $ 3.62 Expansion to Two Lanes I Main Vail Underpass Revesible $ 2.00 $ 35% 65% $ 0.71 $ 1.29 Lane J Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 14% 86% $ 0.17 $ 1.03 K Underpass (Cost Recovery) $ 9.10 $ 22% 78% $ 1.96 $ 7.14 L Underpassto Forest Road $ 7.00 $ 7.00 0% 0% $ - $ - Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk) M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements $ 4.50 $ - 46% 54% $ 2.05 $ 2.45 (5 Lane/Walk) N ELHC to LH Parking Structure $ 0.75 $ - 46% 54% $ 0.34 $ 0.41 Entrance Medians O LH Parking Structure Entrance to $ 9.00 $ 2.25 39% 36% $ 3.55 $ 3.20 Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt) Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley P Drive (Medians, TC Device, $ 6.50 $ - 29% 71% $ 1.92 $ 4.58 Compact Rdabt) Q PW/WD Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 R Booth Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt $ 8.50 $ 22% 78% $ 1.83 $ 6.67 T Donovan to Westhaven Drive $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 Walk U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge) $ 0.75 $ 0.75 0% 0% $ - $ - V VVD Path imrpovements $ 1.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.26 $ 0.94 Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest W $ 0.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.11 $ 0.39 Rd) Walk X ELHC (LHWCto Dobson) Walk $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass $ 6.00 $ 22% 78% $ 1.29 $ 4.71 Z VMS to Bighorn Path $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 AA ELHC (Vantage Point to S. $ 0.20 $ 22% 78% $ 0.04 $ 0.16 Frontage Road) Walk BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix) $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr CC $ 1.00 $ 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Creek Rd) DD Line Haul Transit Stop $ 1.60 $ 22% 78% $ 0.34 $ 1.26 Improvement Projects EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters) $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 FF Arosa Transit Parking $ 2.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.54 $ 1.96 GG Frontage Road Lighting $ 5.00 $ 0% 100% $ - $ 5.00 Improvements HH Structured Parking Expansion & $ $ 0% 100% $ - $ - Buses Grand Totals $ 95.00 $19.60 28% 72% $ 20.81 $ 54.59 Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips => 838 Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip => $ 24,836 12 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 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 primarily using a plan -based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable. 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 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 the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system improvements (approximately $21 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 $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for attached housing and hotel rooms 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 detached dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area. Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling, by heated floor area, are documented in Appendix A. 13 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables Residential (perHouinq Unit)-. om Attached in Core Area all sizes PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips 0.24 Attached Outside Core all sizes 0.30 Detached 2099 or less 0.33 Detached 2100 to 2599 0.34 Detached 2600 to 3099 0.35 Detached 3100 to 3599 0.37 Detached 3600 to 4099 0.38 Detached 4100 to 4599 0.39 Detached 4600 to 5099 0.40 Detached 5100 to 5599 0.41 Detached 5600 to 6099 0.41 Detached 6100 or more 0.42 Hotel (per room) Hotel in Core Area 0.24 Hotel Outside Core 0.30 Nonresidential (per 1, 000 Sp Ft of floor area Commercial 0.56 Hospital 0.40 Office & Other Services 0.25 Infrastructure Standards Cost per Trip => $24,836 Revenue Credit Per Trip => $0 14 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 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 Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residential(per housing unit Attached in Core Area Attached Outside Core Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Detached Hotel (per room) 7 . - . - I I all sizes all sizes 2099 or less 2100 to 2599 2600 to 3099 3100 to 3599 3600 to 4099 4100 to 4599 4600 to 5099 5100 to 5599 5600 to 6099 6100 or more $5,960 $7,450 $8,195 $8,444 $8,692 $9,189 $9,437 $9,686 $9,934 $10,182 $10,182 $10,431 Hotel in Core Area $5,960 Hotel Outside Core $7,450 Nonresidential (per square foot of floor area) Commercial $13.90 Hospital $9.93 Office & Other Services $6.20 15 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. 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 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New hotels will generate approximately 11%, while other types of nonresidential development will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Additional Type Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 3% Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Detached Housing Units 120 Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 Commercial KSF 320 Hospital KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 Total => $20,798,000 100% 16 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 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 151. Impact fees are calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year. Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing 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. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties. At the top of Figure Al, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had 2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household. In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of 1.53 vehicles available per household. The middle section of Figure Al provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix of 77.7% condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53 persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15 persons per household. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68 vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix yields a nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit. Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the bottom section of Figure Al (see Vail PM -Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates 17 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 based on persons and vehicles available, for single detached housing units by bedroom range. In the Town of Vail, each household in a single detached unit is expected to generate an average of 0.57 PM -Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends per household. Figure Al - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Calibrated to Demographic Control Totals for Vail, Colorado ACS 2013 5 -Year PUMS Data for PUMA 400 (Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties) Bedroom Range Persons (1) Vehicles Available (1) Households (1) PUMA 400 Hshld Mix Unadjusted Persons/Hshld Adj Persons per Hshld (2) Unadjusted VehAvl/Hshld Adj Veh Avl per Hshld (2) 0-2 134 156 75 19.7% 1.79 1.62 2.08 1.38 3 409 376 165 43.4% 2.48 2.24 2.28 1.52 4 248 229 97 25.5% 1 2.56 2.31 2.361 1.57 5+ 1141 1121 431 11.3% 1 2.651 2.39 2.601 1.73 Total 905 873 380 National Averages According to ITE ITE PM -Peak VTE PM -Peak VTE per PM -Peak VTE Vail Code per Person Vehicle Available per Household Hshld Mix 230 Condo / 0.58 4 1 0.58 0.61 1 0.60 0.24 0.31 0.52 77.7% Townhouse 210 SFD 0.27 0.67 1.02 22.3% Wgtd Avg 0.25 0.39 0.63 Recommended Trip Rate by Bedroom Ranae Bedroom Range PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Persons (3) PM -Peak VTE per Hshid Based on Veh Available (4) Vail PM -Peak VTE per Hshld (5) 0-2 0.41 0.54 0.48 3 0.56 0.59 0.58 4 1 0.58 0.61 1 0.60 5+ 0.601 0.67 1 0.64 Total 0.54 0.60 0.57 2.38 2.15 Persons per Household 2.17 3.78 2.53 2.30 - Veh Avl per Household 1.68 1.52 64 (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdato Somple for CO PUMA 400 (2013 Five -Year unweighted data). (2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the overage PUMS values match control totals for Vail (ACS 2014 Five -Year data). (3) Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. (4)Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. (5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Does not show adjustment to inbound trips (64% entering). 18 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 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 two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average three-bedroom unit has 2,667 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 A2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM -Peak, inbound trips by size of detached housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, 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 0.33 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 0.42 inbound vehicle trips. 19 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet 0.35 .N Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted -Curve Values Average dwelling size by bedroom = 0.25 Bedrooms iquare Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet Inbound Trips range is from County Assessor a parcel database. PM -Peak vehicle 0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 0.33 y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 trip ends are derived using ACS 3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 0.34 0 PUMS data and calibrated to Town 4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 0.35 of Vail demographics. Inbound 5+ 5,706 0.41 3100 to 3599 0.37 trips are 64% of trip ends (ITE 3600 to 4099 0.38 4100 to 4599 0.39 PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips 4600 to 5099 0.40 per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO 5100 to 5599 0.41 5600 to 6099 0.41 0.45 16100 or more 0.42 c 0.40 0.35 .N c 0.30 = 0.25 v CL 0.20 a 0.15 y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 0.10 RZ = 0.9513 0 0.05 0.00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Square Feet of Heated Area 20 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. Colorado's enabling legislation allows local governments to "waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government." However, projected impact fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will create a significant funding gap. 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 site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct 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 impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Town -wide Service Area The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the Town of Vail. Even though Colorado's enabling legislation uses the phrase "direct benefit" Vail is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements along the 1-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town. 21 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Voil Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Categories Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living space, excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides further documentation of demographic data by size threshold. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar vehicle trip generation rates. • "Commercial" includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment uses if they are located in a shopping center (e.g. movie theater). • "Office & Other Services" includes offices (e.g. professional, medical and dental), personal services and business services (e.g. banks). Also included in this category are public and quasi - public buildings that provide educational, social assistance, or religious services. 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 warehousing. 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. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected officials for their consideration. 22 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES Been, Vicki. 2005. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability", Cityscape: Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185. Blanton, Whit. 2000. "Integrating Land Use and Transportation" Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 40: 9-13. Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. "Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for Mixed -Use Development" ITE Journal 80(8): 24-28, 33. Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press. Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. "Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip Generation Rates" Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119. Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" ITE Journal. Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. "Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments" Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 758. Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute. Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. "Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety." Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3): 309-329. Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" Transportation Research Record 1780. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment" Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294. Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. "Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single -Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking" Transportation Research Record 1466. Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Frank, Lawrence. 2000. "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life" Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22. 23 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. "New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use" Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press. Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-13. Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice -Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League. Lein berger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press. Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision -Support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project -Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University. Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation /Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association. Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation /Land Use Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press. 24 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030. Island Press. Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low -Traffic Developments. Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London: MacMillan Press. Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration. 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. Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Report S2 -C16 -RR -1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology. Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan. Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects" Access 45, University of California Transportation Center. Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei -Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida. Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak -Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242. 25 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy Press Special Report 298. Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development. Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 26 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Why is the U.S. in this economic crisis? A major ROOT cause of this declining economy is over -taxation and over regulation of new construction by government which escalated home prices to unaffordable levels. Below is a detailed explanation of the unforeseen detrimental ramifications of huge fees & regulations on new construction, what happened to the economy and logical low cost solutions which could greatly accelerate economic recovery in the U.S. AN EXAMPLE OF OVER TAXATION & REGULATION FOR STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA Stockton is one of California's "affordable housing cities" and the epicenter of the housing crisis. Stockton's building permit fees increased about 300% between 2002 and 2010 and totaled about $65,000 in 2010 for a 2000 sq. ft. home. There is another $60,000 of additional costs associated with well- intentioned, but not thought -through regulatory requirements. Governmental induced costs exacerbated inflation. In 2002, a new 2000 sq. ft. home in Stockton cost $255,000; in 2006 it cost $440,000 (of which approximately $140,000 is from over -the -top regulatory fees). Fees and regulations resulted in housing becoming unaffordable under the "old sound" borrowing requirements. Unfortunately government and private lenders responded to the unaffordability of homes by lowering borrowing requirements so people could buy homes to fulfill "the American Dream". Lower borrowing requirements resulted in many bad loans. LENDING BLUNDER Soaring new home prices drove up existing home values by approximately $140,000. All housing became less affordable, especially to first time home buyers. Because federal government encourages the American dream of home ownership, borrowing requirements were reduced. There is a belief that better communities are achieved with pride of ownership. This results in reduced expense for police services. Borrowing standards were greatly reduced and home ownership increased from 67% to 69%; yes, only a difference of 2%! Subprime loans, which were in existence for many years, started being used more frequently. Borrowing qualifications and requirements on subprime loans were substantially reduced. In order to get under qualified clients to qualify, some loan officers committed fraud and then collected their commissions. CALIFORNIA LEAD THE U.S. INTO THE NATIONAL FINANCIAL CRISIS 25% of all bad home loans are from California. The bad loans were bundled with other loans to form loan packages sold by Wall Street. Some loans in the packages went bad. Bad loan packages resulted in the potential collapse of financial institutions and AIG who insured the packages! GOVERNMENT TREATED THE SYMPTOMS AND NOT THE CAUSE The U.S. Government attempted to stop a financial collapse by bailing out AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and banks. Government tried to stimulate the housing economy with the $8,000 home purchase tax credit. The government bailouts benefit a few people, but they are costly for all taxpayers and merely treat the symptoms and did not fix the ROOT cause of the financial and housing crisis. Local and state government's over taxation and regulation resulted in 35% of the cost of a new home's construction. This is what made housing unaffordable in the first place. Passing federal legislation to limit fees and regulations to no more than 3% of the costs of a new home would eliminate the ROOT cause. This legislation will not add to federal costs, is easy to enact and administer - and benefits society and all states equally. When new homes become affordable, jobs will be created resulting in stimulating the economy. Affordable housing will result in a sustainable housing economy and lead the U.S. out of the financial crisis. Warren Buffet stated the economy will improve when residential construction improves! Both political parties should be able to wrap their arms around legislation that limits fees and regulation to 3% of the cost of anew home. This legislation will stimulate jobs. The proposed federal legislation will force state and local governments to use tax dollars more effectively. It will force them to find alternative revenue sources that spread taxes more evenly across society. Spreading taxes evenly results in a larger number of people paying taxes and lowers taxes for each individual. Lower taxes are more palatable. Hopefully politicians that do not back this logical solution for the housing and financial crisis will be voted out of office. Details of the solution are explained below. SOLUTIONS ARE EASILY IDENTIFIED IF YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM BACKWARDS WHAT CAN THE AVERAGE PERSON COMFORTABLY AFFORD TO BUY? In order to have a sustainable economy, an average household income must be able to comfortably afford a house using the old lending standards and a 7.5% interest rate. The mean household income in Stockton California is about $52,000. This income allows them to comfortably own a $150,000 home with 20% down. They would have a $120,000 fixed rate loan and would be paying 24% of their income for their principle, interest, taxes and insurance — their PITI payment. WHAT A NEW HOME NEEDS TO SELL FOR: LESS THAN $176,000 A new home can sell for $176,000 if it can demand a 15% premium over an existing home. A contractor can NOT build a $176,000 home if it costs $50,000 to $140,000 for permits and regulations. In other states, fees and regulations are under $4,000 and contactors can and do build the average house for under $176,000 Fees in California need to be under $4,000 to compete with other states and to achieve a sustainable economy. Lodi and Lathrop fees are significantly less than Stockton fees. THE RESULTS OF OVER TAXATION AND REGULATION INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: "LEVERAGE EFFECT" THE HUGE UNFORSEEN DETRIMENTAL EFFECT Governmental officials did not foresee the leverage effect of placing $125,000 of fees and regulations on new homes. A 15% profit on the additional $125,000 of costs, increased new home prices by $144,000. There are at least 90 existing homes for every new home built. For every 1,000 homes built, there are 90,000 existing homes. These existing homes increased about 13 billion dollars in value. Many existing homeowners used their homes like piggy banks by tapping into the increase home value. In addition, many people used subprime loans to refinance. Records reveal the majority of subprime loans were refinances. Many borrowers defaulted and walked from their loans after they "sold" their house to the lending institution. Foreclosures devastated the value of neighboring homes. Over 13 billion dollars of additional buying power (demand) was created in Stockton and resulted in the unintended consequence of inflation, escalating housing prices even higher during boom times. Stockton has over 99,000 homes! TAXES AND FEES ARE PALATBLE IF SPREAD ACROSS SOCIETY If there are approximately 96 existing homes for every new home built (a 1.3% expansion rate). A better approach would be taxing all homeowners $688. This would collect the same amount of dollars as taxing the new home buyer $66,000 in fees. Since many of the regulations do more harm than good, the government would only need to collect about $300 in additional taxes on all houses (existing and new) to cover worthwhile expenses. Three hundred dollars is palatable; $66,000 is not. Sixty six Thousand dollars ($66,000) greatly alters the free market system that the United States economy is based upon. History has shown that government decisions can greatly affect a free market economy. WHY WERE FEES PLACED ON CONSTRUCTION IN CALIFORNIA? Fees escalated under the incorrect assumption that California's Prop 13 (which limited property tax increases to 2% per year) reduced government's income. Government used Nexus reports to justify fees on new construction. The 2010-2011 Stockton Nexus report, states "Since the passage of Proposition 13, property tax revenues have been insufficient for capital funding... " "... Given these funding difficulties, the City requires new development to pay fees to fund the facilities necessary to accommodate growth. " ANALYSIS REVEAL PROP 13 WAS NOT THE PROBLEM If the property taxes collected in San Diego County in 2010 are divided by the property taxes collected in 1977 (the year before Prop 13), it is discovered that $7.20 is collected now for every dollar collected back in 1977. Adjusting the dollar by 85% population growth and by 260% inflation reveals that we should be only collecting $4.80. Instead we are collecting $7.20 — this is 1.5 times what we need to collect. The foregoing figures should be further adjusted because worker productivity increases should result in fewer tax dollars needed. A mere I% productivity increase per year reveals that we only need to collect $3.60. However, government is collecting $7.20 in property taxes, plus government is collecting exorbitant impact fees. California ranks 14 in the nation for property taxes! California has one of the highest sales and income taxes, plus it collects impact fees on new construction! WHERE DID THE MONEY GO? In the 1970's, governmental employees wages were lower than the private sector but they had good guaranteed retirement and benefit programs. Currently I would highly recommend employment in the governmental sector (especially the local government sector) because of the generous wage and benefit packages as opposed to the private sector. Is the Stockton following in Greece's foot steps? REGULATIONS — WELL INTENTIONED BUT NOT THOUGHT THROUGH An example of "focused thinking" and not considering the unforeseen consequences of regulations is reflected in the attached pictures of a rainwater treatment tank that is installed in a subdivision of 303 homes on 77 acres in Stockton, California. The cost of this tank was about 2 million dollars. The rainwater treatment tank which is made from lots of steel and concrete is about 400 feet long, 16 feet wide, 8 feet tall and is buried about 20 feet underground. The tank caused more environmental harm than good. Rainwater tanks have the potential to be huge methane bombs as organic materials, such as leaves, decay. Other flammables such as solvents, diesel fuel, oil and leaks from natural gas lines, can accumulate in the tank. The tanks are breeding ponds for the mosquitoes carrying the West Nile Virus. Other significant negative environmental effects of these tanks include the air pollution created; from hydrocarbons burned to dig the hole, install the tank, fuel burnt when the sediment that collects in the tank is hauled off and from the methane gas produced by decaying matter in the tank. Air pollution is also created from the production of the steel, concrete, and materials used for tank construction and transportation of those materials to the job site. Other detrimental effects include $50,000 in extra annual taxes collected from the 303 homeowners to maintain the tank. Additional taxes need to be collected to poison the water for mosquito prevention. After 6 years the tank trapped four dump truck loads of sediment which was removed, dried and later placed in a landfill. Over $300,000 in taxes was collected for 4 dump truck loads of dirt! If future development projects in the United States are required to have rain water treatment facilities. Over the next 100 years, billions of dollars will be spent and less than 1/100 of a percent of the rainwater runoff will be treated. The decontamination of the rainwater runoff will be negligible for the billions of dollars that will be spent. There are less expensive alternatives which can help the environment. The initial cost of the rain water tank, ongoing taxes and environmental harm is just one example of "not thought through" government regulations that add to building costs. There are numerous other regulations that are not needed and counterproductive. If drastic changes don't occur to eliminate unnecessary regulations and dramatically reduce building permit fees and red tape, the future of the American economy will be affected for many many years. There are many more "not thought through" government initiated programs that are mainly paid for by new construction. Examples are buying up developmental rights to leave land undeveloped and other regulations to protect the environment. These programs benefit everyone, but instead of spreading the cost over society and thus reducing the tax to a palatable figure, government placed the cost on one entity, the new home buyer. The cost of a mitigation measure that benefits all is not a fee. It is a tax because it benefits all. It is an illegally enacted tax. These taxes should not be added to new construction because it makes housing more unaffordable and adds to the ROOT cause of the housing crisis. Government seems oblivious or unsympathetic to the fact that these costs accumulate and eventually overwhelm the new home buyer. Government did not understand that new construction pays its fair share. There are sales taxes on materials. Construction wages paid result in sales taxes when their families shop. A $300,000 home generates in excess of $13,000 in extra sales tax and another $330 from a .11% transfer tax. Some cities impose transfer taxes that exceeded 1%. In perspective, the $13,000 in extra taxes generated by a $300,000 home may be more than the state and federal taxes paid by individuals who purchase the new homes. TAXES ON PROPERTY ARE DETRIMENTAL Sales taxes and income taxes have a direct relationship to a person's ability to pay. Taxing property is a very poor choice because property taxes do not have a relationship to a person's ability to pay and greatly distress and burden the young, old (retired) and average income earner. Certain things are needed to survive on earth. Government made them more affordable to all, by not taxing Food, Water or Air. Why did government choose to tax Shelter? This was a mistake! Construction is a major economic engine, creating jobs and significantly decreases unemployment costs. Government should stimulate, not overtax, this sector of the economy. A conflict of interest exists for lobbyists, environmentalists, government employees and the elected officials who voted to place huge costs on new construction. Community development departments increased in size and their budgets swelled during flush times. Because more money was available for government employee wages, benefits, and retirement programs, unions bargained for higher wages. An even greater conflict of interest was their homes increasing $115,000 in value for every $100,000 of fees and regulations. (The extra $15,000 represents the builder's profit on the $100,000 in extra costs). Existing homeowners falsely believed they greatly benefited from the rising value of their home. Most homeowners did not realize the rapid price increases were in a large part due to fees and regulations. They borrowed against their increased equity and bought rental homes to get in on the rapid price increases. This led to the frenzied spiral of over -inflated home prices. However, even without the recession, the huge increase in equity in the existing homes evaporated when home owners had to lend their children money so their children could qualify and buy the higher priced homes. SOLUTIONS 1. The key to a rejuvenated economy is addressing a major ROOT cause of the recession. One solution could be utilizing interstate commerce laws and passing federal legislation limiting total building permit fees and auxiliary costs to no more than 3 percent of construction costs. Passing such legislation will cost the federal government little, unlike the other bailouts the federal government has already authorized, such as the one time new homeowner's tax credit of $8,000 as previously discussed. That $8,000 tax credit benefited a select few at the cost of everyone. Passing legislation, as suggested, would help more people afford homes, be easier to administer, and greatly reduce the discrepancies in permit costs between cities, counties and states. 2. Another part of the solution is to pass legislation requiring studies of the unintended consequences of the mitigation measures recommended in the initial environmental impact reports, and that the proposed mitigation measures be required to: A) be reasonable; B) be the most cost effective solutions C) access their economic impact, D) have a positive economic impact E) be paid for by all (all who benefit). Environmentalists do not want to do more harm to the environment and should not be opposed to the legislation suggested. Government use to pay for infrastructure while collecting a lower sales and income tax More effective use of tax dollars is needed. California already collects some of the highest income, sales and property taxes in the United States. Additional taxes on new construction are not needed and should not be relied on because they have huge detrimental leverage effect and other effects that are the ROOT cause of the economic crisis. The majority of tax dollars is spent on education. Schools have a terrible business plan. The United States spends more than other nations on education but we test near the bottom. Since 1971 educational spending per student has doubled (after adjusting for inflation) yet test scores have remained the same. We could easily cut education expenses in half and also raise test scores. I encourage you to go to Khanacademy.or which is a free educational web site backed by the Melinda and Bill Gates foundation. I suggest you and all parents view the 60 Minute episode on Khan academy www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7401696n and the video at the Khanacademy.org web site that describes why this education technique is successful. http://www.khanacademy.org/video/salman-khan- talk-at-ted-2011--from-ted-com?alavlist=Khan+Academv-Related+Talks+and+Interviews. Another interesting TED TALK video by Professor Robinson about education is http://www.ted.com/talks/ken robinson says schools kill creativity.html Los Altos School District has had great success using Khanacademy.org. If half of the dollars spent on education (or prisons) could be used for paying off the national debt and doing comprehensive reevaluations of all existing governmental programs, we could get out of this financial crisis. These suggestions will increase governmental income as construction resumes. More sales tax would be generated from building materials and from income taxes realized from jobs created. The governmental expense of unemployment will be greatly reduced. The expense of specialized stimulus packages will be eliminated. The government has a relatively short window of time to rectify the problem of overtaxing one entity (new homes). If legislation reduced the price of a new home built in 2010 from $350,000 to $225,000 by reducing the taxes, fees and over regulations on construction, it would be seemingly unfair to those people who bought the $350,000 homes. However, the recession has already reduced the value of the $350,000 houses purchased between 2005 and 2008 to $200,000 and thus it will not affect these people. Construction is a major economic engine. We have all witnessed the negative result of pushing the cost of housing beyond the grasp of the common citizen, the far-reaching effect on the entire economy and especially on those communities that overtaxed new construction. Many communities that did not overtax new construction did not have rapid inflation of home prices and thus home prices did not greatly decrease in this recession. The new legislation ACT suggests will not alter these markets. Our legislators must ACT now and if they don't, we must ACT now and vote them out of office. A grass root organization called ACT (Alliance for Controlling Taxes) has been established by a group of citizens to educate politicians and the general population concerning the unforeseen consequences of putting fees and regulations on new construction. ACT intends to suggest solutions to stabilize and stimulate our failing economy. ACT welcomes all who would like to actively research and advocate for sound solutions, which may improve not only the local but the national economy. ACT will be funding the publication of the foregoing educational information in major newspapers, explaining why the U.S. is in the current recession and what citizens can do to counteract the continuing decline. If you would like to join in this effort or to donate financially, contact ACT today. ACT anticipates support from Businesses and people from all walks of life, since nearly everyone is affected by this economic crisis. Your participation and or donation directly helps you. Also, people with a variety of skills are being sought to help with website development, identifying creative means of informing the public and access to public officials who have the ability to make the necessary changes. Contact us at ACTforTaxChange @ gmail.com, or call 719 293-0655. Send donations to ACT, 2818 Golden Eagle Drive, Stockton, CA 95209 A Suggestion Made To ACT. ACT Welcomes Your Opinions & Suggestions The mortgage crisis is created by what? People who cannot afford their mortgage payments. So we force them out of their homes. Banks go under, property values of nearby homes plummet, jobs are lost, and the American people get stuck with an $700 billion bailout. Why not let these people stay in their homes, and let them continue making whatever payments they were able to afford in the beginning? Yet, nobody should get a free lunch. The government (a.k.a. US taxpayers) can pay the difference of the mortgage, and take partial equity on the value of the house. In other words, if the Fed pays $1000 of the mortgage payment, the Fed gets $1000 of equity and collects that equity when the home sells. The banks will not have bad loans. Banks will become liquid again because there will be less defaults. The housing market becomes stable again because the glut of short sales and foreclosures disappears. Our own property values will increase because there won't be "Short Sale" and "Foreclosure" signs everywhere. When the houses are eventually sold, American taxpayers reap the rewards of shared equity, leading to the possibility of reducing taxes in the future. Sufficient laws must be in place preventing any bank or agency from making the kinds of loans that are unsustainable — the kind that got us where we are today. Tom Ruemmler TRuemmler(ahotmail.com 719 293-0655 An expensive 400 foot long, 16 foot wide, 8 foot tall storm drainage tank. $50,000/year of taxes are collected from 303 houses to maintain the tank. Inside the tank are 3 foot tall dams about every 20 feet. The dams create many ponds. Fine dirt settles in the ponds. After many years, the sludge is removed, trucked to a site and dried. It is then trucked to a landfill. Billions of dollars will be spent on rainwater treatment, but very little water will be treated. Calculations reveal little if any improvement will be seen in the streams. The well intended Clean Water Act's implementation was not thought -through. Unintended consequences include air pollution and green houses gasses from the hydrocarbons burnt to manufacture, install the tank and haul off the sludge. The tanks can become huge bombs as a result of gases accumulating in the tank from the fermenting of organic matter such as leaves, or spillage of flammables, or from leaks in natural gas lines. The tanks are breeding pools for mosquitoes that can carry the West Nile Virus Tom Kassmel From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 11:41 AM To: Tom Kassmel Cc: Matt Mire; George Ruther; Allison Kent; Greg Hall Subject: Traffic Impact fees Hi Tom: I will not be able to attend your open house on traffic impact fees today. I have a cold I am dealing with and don't want to infect the world. Here are some questions and comments that I think the Town should consider when deciding to adopt a new fee targeted to the last 5% of growth in Vail. Consider charging for parking in the summer and use the funds generated for these roadway improvements. There is a nexus in that those parking in Vail are impacting the entire roadway network. This would avoid imposing an additional fee on development that Vail needs and wants. There is a disconnect between the adoption of a traffic impact fee and the Town's other stated goals and incentives built into the Zoning Regulations. The Town wants additional employee housing and has an aggressive requirement already placed on development. Adding an impact fee on employee housing only exacerbates the problem and the ability to bring forward employee housing. The Town has incentivized the development of employee housing by not counting the GRFA and Density for this use in most zone districts. Employee housing units, in all of its forms, should be exempt from the impact fee. On this same disconnect, the Town has incentivized the development of hotel rooms/accommodation units by not counting hotel rooms against density. Additionally, every adopted master planning document discusses the importance of hotel rooms to the Town's vitality and especially the generation of revenues. Every hotel room created generates significant ongoing revenues to the Town, beyond that of just about any other use, including dwelling units. However, the proposed impact fees are the same as applied to a dwelling unit. This is a disincentive to creating hotel rooms within the Town. Another element that is also missing is the amount of hotel traffic that relies on the Town's bus system, hotel shuttles, and CME shuttles. It appears from the numbers that there is not enough credit being given to the reduction in traffic within hotel facilities versus dwelling units. Hotel rooms/accommodation units should be exempted from the Impact Fee. The Town has struggled for years with the loss of office space throughout the Town. Charging an impact fee on office or other commercial spaces, will further exacerbate this issue. It already does not make any financial sense to develop office space in the Town. This impact fee will had to that equation in a very negative way. Office space should also be exempt from the fee. I believe there is a fundamental problem with adopting a traffic impact fee at this point in Vail's history. The fee makes it more difficult to attract and construct the kind of development projects the Town desires. The redevelopment of Lionshead is a great example of creating incentives to produce the type of development that will spin off huge revenues to the Town, way more revenues over the long haul than these upfront impact fees generate. Does the Town have the right and the basis for adopting an impact fee? Of course it does. Is it the right thing to do or in the best interest of the Town's long term revenue goals? Absolutely not. If the Town is short on cash related to road projects, think about: charging for summer parking; going to the voters to change how RETT funds can be used; and adopt a new property or sales tax dedicated road improvements. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my thoughts. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com ORDINANCE NO. _ SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 26, ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES" WHEREAS, to ensure the provision of adequate public transportation services and facilities in the Town, the Town Council wishes to condition certain land use approvals on payment of a transportation impact fee; WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that municipalities may impose exactions (impact fees) on the granting of land use approvals, provided that there is an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate local government interest, and provided that the exaction is roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impact of the proposed use or development, pursuant to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); C.R.S. § 29-20-203 and related case law; WHEREAS, the Town has conducted and adopted a study to provide the basis for the imposition of the transportation impact fee and to determine the appropriate amount of the transportation impact fee, which study was prepared by TischlerBise on March 10, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations delineating the Town's procedure for imposing a transportation impact fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 26, which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 12-26-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE: A. Findings. The Town Council finds and determines as follows: 1. A legitimate, identifiable public purpose is served by requiring a transportation impact fee for new development and redevelopment projects in the Town; 2. There is an essential nexus between the transportation impact fee imposed in this Chapter and the Town's interest in providing transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 1 4/20/2017 S:ICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201 T 04241 T PEC 17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE -ORDINANCE 0041817. DOCX 3. The Town is acting within its power to provide transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 4. But for new development and redevelopment projects, the Town would not be considering either the provision or expansion of transportation infrastructure, services or facilities; 5. New development and redevelopment projects are contributing causes to the need for new or expanded transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 6. The Town would be legally justified in denying applications for new development or redevelopment projects unless the transportation impact fee is imposed, because of the burden the new development or redevelopment projects would place on the Town's transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; and 7. The Town has conducted a study to determine the amount of the transportation impact fee, and the study demonstrates that the transportation impact fee will be roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of new development and redevelopment projects. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to impose a transportation impact fee on new development and redevelopment projects in the Town, as set forth herein. 12-26-2: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Commercial development" means: 2. "Residential development" means: 3. "Project" means any residential or commercial development subject to this Chapter. 12-26-3: APPLICABILITY: A. The transportation impact fee shall be imposed on the following construction, development or redevelopment in the Town: 1. For commercial development, on any net new square footage to be constructed. 2. For residential development, on each new residential unit to be constructed. 2 4/20/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMEN7180ARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710424171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEITRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE -ORDINANCE 0041817.DOCX B. The transportation impact fee shall not be imposed on the construction, development or redevelopment of any Employee Housing Unit. `PIM. , a4:8 The transportation impact fee shall be in the amount set by resolution of the Town Council. The fee shall be imposed by the Community Development Department, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, as part of the last land use approval for the project. The fee shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit for the project. 12-26-5: CREDIT: A. An applicant may apply for a credit as set forth in this Section, which credit shall be applied to offset the transportation impact fee that would otherwise be imposed for the project. B. Credit shall be provided for any dedication or conveyance of land from the applicant to the Town. The amount of the credit shall be the present, fair market value of the land being dedicated or conveyed, as determined by the Town in its reasonable discretion. C. Credit shall be provided for any construction of Town -approved transportation infrastructure or facilities undertaken by the applicant at the applicant's cost that offset the transportation impacts of the project. The transportation infrastructure or facilities may be constructed as part of the project, or in other areas of the Town, as determined by the Town and the applicant. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering the total cost of construction and other relevant factors. D. Credit shall be provided for any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost, that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering actual costs to provide the services and other relevant factors. i PIMS- N AN I ATiV A. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Community Development Department, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board may apply for review by the Town Council, by filing a written request for review within 10 days of the decision at issue. 3 4/20/2017 S:ICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIBOARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201 T 04241 T PEC 17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE -ORDINANCE 0041817. DOCX B. Within 30 days of receipt of the written request, the Town Council shall hold a public hearing. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the imposition of the transportation impact fee as assessed would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. C. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, the Town Council may decrease the transportation impact fee (or increase any credit) to ensure that there is no unconstitutional taking. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). D. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Town Council may seek judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 4 4/20/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMEN7180ARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710424171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEITRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE -ORDINANCE 0041817.DOCX INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 2017, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 5 4/20/2017 S:ICOMMUNITYDEVELOPMEN7180ARDSIPLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONIPEC MEETINGS 201710424171PEC17-0008 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEITRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE -ORDINANCE 0041817.DOCX TOWN OF VA110 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 24, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-4-A-3, Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building identification sign above the 25 foot height limitation, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive (Hotel Talisa)/Cascade Village — Cascade Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0007) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17-0007_Hotel_Talisa_Sign_Variance Memo.pdf PEC17-0007 Hotel Talisa Sign Variance Memo TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-4-A-3, Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building identification sign above the 25 foot height limitation, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive (Hotel Talisa)/Cascade Village — Cascade Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0007) Applicant: Hotel Talisa, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker I. SUMMARY This application has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 24, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: April 10, 2017 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC—Results 041017.pdf Description April 10, 2017 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 10, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar Members Absent: None Swearing-in New PEC Members Site Visits: Solar Vail, 501 North Frontage Road West Plaza Lodge, 291 Bridge Street 2. A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an exterior remodel and additions to two units within Plaza Lodge, Unit R-1, located at 291 Bridge Street/Lots F -K, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0004) Applicant: Bridge Street Land LLC, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Matt Panfil MOTION: Approve, with conditions FIRST: Kurz SECOND: Lockman VOTE: 6-1-0 (Gillette opposed) Conditions: 1. Approval of this exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application,- 2. pplication, 2. Prior to final approval by the Design Review Board, the applicant shall submit an updated and stamped topographic survey; 3. Prior to requesting a framing inspection, the applicant shall submit an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) from a Colorado licensed surveyor to verify that the proposed addition and alterations are built per approved plans and do not encroach into View Corridor #4. The ILC shall include both the vertical and horizontal location of the improvements and shall also include a comparison of the as -built conditions of the addition to View Corridor #4. Any encroachment into View Corridor #4 shall be removed by the applicant consistent with Title 12, Chapter 22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, 4. The applicant shall mitigate the employee housing impact created by the net new square footage in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, and the applicant shall make the required fee in lieu payment to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of any building permit; and 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit revised floor plans for verification by staff that the addition to the third floor unit, R1 -A, will not result in any increase of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) which exceeds the 250 square feet that can be added to the unit's current GRFA under Section 12-15-5, Vail Town Code. " Panfil introduced the project and presented the changes that have occurred since the previous meeting on March 27, 2017. Panfil reviewed the required criteria for approval and staff's analysis. He discussed staff's recommendation and the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Lockman: Asked about Condition #3 related to the ILC requirement. Panfil clarified. Bill Pierce, Architect, representing the applicant made himself available for questions. Commissioner Gillette: Asked for additional clarification related to the extent of the deck. Kit Austin, Pierce Architects, helped to explain the deck with Bill Pierce's assistance. Commissioner Comment: Commissioner Lockman: Feels the proposed changes are appropriate and will support the project. Commissioner Kurz: Entrusts staff to verify all dimensional standards. He supports the proposed changes including the removal of the curved section. He supports the project. Commissioner Stockmar: Concurs with Commissioners Lockman and Kurz and supports the proposed changes. Commissioner Gillette: Concurs with previous commissioner comments, except in regards to the distance the third floor deck extends from the structure. He thinks that the deck should not be proud of the second floor deck. Bill Pierce: Attempted to clarify the extent that the deck proposed is proud of the second story deck. He thinks that the third floor deck being cantilevered over the second floor deck provides architectural relief and is the minimum practical size. Commissioner Hopkins: Asked about snow removal. She thinks the deck is too large and questioned the use of the second floor space below the third floor deck and if it is being compromised. Commissioner Perez: Stated her concern about the size of the third floor deck. Chairman Rediker: Discussed the recommended conditions of approved. He thinks the deck is a little odd, but is not out of character. He spoke to the need for improved building drainage. He proposed language for a condition of approval based on staff's request for an additional condition of approval associated with verifying the size of the proposed additions. 3. A request for a worksession for a conceptual review of a Development Plan pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Solar Vail parcel, located at 501 N. Frontage Road West, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, Block 2, Lot 8. (PEC17-0005)— 60 min. Applicant: Sonnenalp properties, represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Neubecker distributed a letter from the property owner and then provided a summary of the concept plans. The summary included discussion on the following items: the number of units, zoning district, parking requirements, proposed modular construction method, and site access. Commissioner Stockmar: Asked if the units would be limited to Sonnenalp employees. Neubecker: Will let the applicant address the question, but believes it is primarily intended for Sonnenalp employees and then will be opened up to outside employees if there are any remaining vacancies. Commissioner Gillette: Asked about the parking requirements for the project. Neubecker clarified. Commissioner Stockmar: Stated that the amount of required parking and which business has their employees living in the structure, are tied together. Employees of businesses farther from core of town will be more likely to need cars and parking. Commissioner Gillette: There is a lack of parking in Vail in general and he is concerned that even though tenants that live in the building do not use the parking, based on his observations at the site visit, the parking spaces are still being occupied by someone. Neubecker: The burden of proof is on the applicant, but they are asking the PEC to take into account the proximity to transit and the Village. Henry Pratt of GPSL Architects, representing the applicant, began by answering some of the questions he heard from the Commissioner. Pratt stated that as there will be more units than before; they anticipate some of the units being available to non-Sonnenalp employees. Pratt also stated that the parking requirement based on the code is over 100 spaces, but they are proposing 35 spaces. Pratt then made a PowerPoint presentation that included renderings of the proposed structure. Pratt emphasized that the location of the site is ideal for employees. There are existing site limitations such as utility easements at the front of the site and a steep slope at the rear of the site. Commissioner Gillette: Asked why the 40% steep slope regulation exists. George Ruther: Code requirements for air, light, and egress, make it difficult to building in such an area. Steep slope regulations are in place to avoid need for an excessive amount of retaining walls and to minimize site impacts. Pratt: Described the difficulty in providing parking in consideration of the existing site limitations. Pratt contrasted and compared the Middle Creek and First Chair projects in regards to the parking requirements for each. The PEC is authorized to approve parking that is less than the minimum required through the approval of a parking management plan. Pratt stated that they cannot build more than 35 parking spaces, but believes they can provide a parking management plan that addresses the parking needs for Solar Vail. Chairman Rediker: Asked if the Solar Vail property and Sonnenalp could be sold separately from each other. Pratt responded affirmatively. Rediker asked if there has been a discussion regarding a limitation on sales of individual units to other entities. The applicant responded that the building will not be converted into condominiums. There was a discussion among several commissioners and the applicant regarding deed restrictions and the potential transfer of ownership of the building. Pratt stated that if the building was ever sold, the new owner would be subject to the approved development plan and parking management plan. Commissioner Perez: The PEC has to look at this as a long term housing solution that accounts for the possibility of the transfer of ownership of Solar Vail. Perez referenced a tax credit program that was used for Middle Creek. Ruther: The housing zone district acknowledges that meeting minimum parking could be a challenge for projects to be built within it, and specifically allowed for the PEC to determine the requirement through a parking management plan. Ruther encouraged the PEC to focus on the overall transportation needs of the project, not just the parking, and if there are alternative means of transportation available. Chairman Rediker: Asked how the applicant will deal with the 40% slope. Pratt: The footprint will go further back into the steep slope and will require retaining walls, but it will step up the hill, which allows for eight more units. Chairman Rediker: Asked staff what needs to be done by the applicant to build into the steep slope. Neubecker: A geological study is required, retaining walls will need to be approved, and impact on vegetation will be evaluated. Ruther: Suggested that the applicant also provide an exhibit that depicts the anticipated area of disturbance. Commissioner Gillette: Asked why the proposal has so many units if Sonnenalp does not need them. Pratt stated that it benefits both the owner and the town. Additional units also help to make the project financially possible. Commissioner Perez: Asked about the unit mix and if the applicant considered any different mixes. Pratt: The proposed mix is based on Sonnenalp's history and needs for employee housing, and evaluating other employee housing units in the area. Commissioner Gillette and Commissioner Perez both made suggestions regarding legally binding ownership of Solar Vail and Sonnenalp together. Gillette stated that maybe the building works for Sonnenalp's employee housing needs, but it may not if there is a different owner of the Solar Vail building. Chairman Rediker: He does not believe decisions should be made based on future owners and not the current owner. He encouraged the PEC to evaluate alternatives beyond a strict parking requirement ratio. Pratt: The proposed parking is similar to the First Chair development. Jerry Flynn: Based on his experience there is sufficient demand for units without parking. Giving priority to employees without cars is one way to address this issue. Commissioner Stockmar: Asked about contingencies if the modular builder cannot provide the units. Pratt: They are talking with a few different modular builders Commissioner Kurz: Suggested that there may be some cooperation between Red Sandstone School parking facilities and the proposed employee housing units. Chairman Rediker: Asked about access for emergency vehicles. Pratt: There is a proposed area for emergency vehicles to turn around. This will need to be evaluated by the Fire Department. Commissioner Lockman: Encouraged the PEC to consider the increased density in consideration of the site location and connections. Chairman Rediker: Asked about the modular construction process, to which Pratt responded by describing the characteristics of the modular units. Rediker also stated that he does not have much concern about the proposed density and height, especially in consideration of the surrounding context. Commissioner Kurz: Agreed with Chairman Rediker and Commissioner Gillette. He also agreed with Commissioner Lockman in that he is ok with the density to the extent that sufficient parking and snow storage is provided. Commissioner Hopkins: Stated her support for the modular construction process. Commissioner Gillette: Asked how many vent pipes will be visible from the structure. Pratt: Expressed his hope that there would be none as there will be a small section of flat roof hidden by other roofs, where rooftop mechanical can be located. Commissioner Lockman: Asked about proposed setbacks. Pratt: Identified an exit stair on the northwest side and the southwest corner of the building that encroach into the west side setback. Several commissioners expressed comfort with the encroachments as Red Sandstone School is the adjacent neighbor. Chairman Rediker: Asked about the requested conditional use. Pratt: The commercial space will be for the Sonnenalp housing office staff that manages Solar Vail and other Sonnenalp-owned properties. Chairman Rediker: Expressed concern about a future change in use that may require more parking. Pratt: As the office is a conditional use, any future use would need to reapply for a conditional use. There was additional discussion among the commissioners, applicant, and staff about the 40% slope and retaining walls. Chairman Rediker: Asked staff about the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Neubecker: There may not be a need for an Environmental Impact Statement but wanted the PEC to be aware that it could be requested if they felt it was necessary. Staff does not see significant environmental impacts, other than the steep slope. Chairman Rediker: Asked about the difference between a geological survey versus an Environmental Impact Study. Neubecker: An Environmental Impact Study is much broader than a geological survey, which more specifically focuses on the safety of building on the site. An Environmental Impact Study could focus on wildlife impacts, noise issues, etc. Commissioner Gillette: Stated that he did not believe an Environmental Impact Statement was necessary. The commissioners expressed various levels of support for the parking as proposed. 4. Approval of Minutes March 27, 2017 PEC Meeting Results MOTION: Approve FIRST: Kurz SECOND: Stockmar VOTE: 4-0-3 (Rediker, Perez, and Hopkins recused) 5. Informational Update 6. Adjournment MOTION: Approve FIRST: Perez SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad Name: 12775947A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 24, 2017, 1:00 PM Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Vail Town Cd -VaiC Colorado, 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 1.Call to Order Daily a Legal Update and Training - Matt Mire, Town Attor- neyMW Site Visit -Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek -434 South Frontage Road PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special De- velopment District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View STATE OF COLORADO } Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consist - SS. ing of 12 dwelling units with 6 attached accommo- dation units (lock -offs), 21 accommodation units COUNTY OF EAGLE } and 9 employee housing units, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006)- 60 min. I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Applicant:Lunar Vail, represented by Mauriello Planning Group representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper Planner: Jonathan Spence printed, In whole or In part and published in the County 3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zoning text amendment pursuant to of Ea le, State of Colorado, and has a eneral circulation g g Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code add a new Chapter 26, Traffic Impact Fee, forth therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and setting s details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0008) - 45 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Tom and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Kassmel Planner:Chris Neubecker more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first 4.A request for the review of a variance from Sec- publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and g tion 11-6-4-A-3, Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of that said news a er has ublished the re uested le al notice h p 1� q g Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, to allow for building identification and advertisement as requested. sign above the 25 foot height limitation, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive (Hotel Talisa)/Cascade Vil- lage - Cascade Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0007) Applicant:Hotel Talisa, represented by Mauriello The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, Planning Group Planner:Chris Neubecker only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Withdrawn Rule. rovision li 5.Approval of Minutes April 10, 2017 PEC Meeting Results 6. Informational Update That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was 7.Adjournment published in the regular and entire issue of every The applications and information about the pro- number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 posals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said Road. The public is invited to attend the project ori- notice was in the issue of said news a er dated 4/21/2017 and p p entation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop - ment Department. Times and order of items are that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/21/2017 in approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re - lied upon to determine at what time the Planning the issue of said newspaper. and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional in- formation. Please call 711 for sign language inter- pretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, Publishedin the Vail Daily April 21, 2017 ( ) 05/02/2017. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 05/02/2017. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 r