Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-21 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionIo-3I.6% €5 TO: Town Council FROM: Stan Zemlerjown Manager Greg Hall, Public Works Director Chad, Salli, Project Engineer Dwight Henninger, Police Chief DATE: 10-2405 Updated 10-21-08 SUBJECT: 1-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update 1. BACKGROUND Since April 2004, Hankard Environmental has been under contract with the Town of Vail to provide consulting services as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the impact of traffic noise on I-70. Jeff Cerjen, representing the consultant team Hankard Environmental, has prepared a presentation outlining a series of mitigation actions'.in the categories of "source," "path" and "receiver" controls. Their observations and recommendations, along with proposed next steps by Town of Vail staff, are presented below. 2. OVERVIEW BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL This overview summarizes noise mitigation recommendations based on the work, to date, by Hankard Environmental: Recommendations are broken down into source, receiver, and path controls. A brief description of the key differences in these types of controls is provided first, followed' by a'description of each recommended noise mitigation measure. 1. Source controls benefit everyone. For example, reducing' speeds and/or putting down quiet pavement reduces noise at ALL homes 'and businesses in town, versus a wall that benefits only those directly behind it or thicker windows that affect only an individual property. Therefore, the number of people that benefit from source measures is large. The cons of source controls are that each measure is costly, speed reduction requires cooperation from almost the entire motoring public, pavement changes require-significant CDOT coordination, and covering the roadway has complex engineering, logistical, and political hurdles. 2. Path controls, i.e.. barriers, benefit a given area such as a neighborhood. The extent of the benefited area depends on the height and length of the barriers and on topography. Barriers can consist of earthen berms, vertical walls, or some combination thereof. Barriers are typically 15 feet tall, can be hundreds to thousands of feet long, and provide 5 to 10 dB of noise reduction to those located within 300 feet of the barrier. Barriers are not very effective for receptors that are elevated above the roadway, -such as houses on a hillside or the upper floors of a high-rise building. The cons of barriers, particularly walls;=are aesthetics, cost, and the rigors' of CDOT coordination. 3. Receiver controls, such as'the construction of solid fences on individual properties arid the installation of better windows are effective, but only benefit individual properties. Such measures are the responsibility of the property owner/developer. There are no significant cons to receiver controls, other than moderate cost. Hankard recommends the Town of Vail consider each of the noise, mitigation measures. described below: None are simple and straightforward,.. This is not surprising, as the problem of 1-70 noise has slowly evolved over the past three decades. Traffic volumes and speeds have increased slowly but steadily, and property development has continued in relatively close proximity to the highway. Back in the, 1970's, we estimate that daytime loudest?hour highway noise levels were in the 55 dBA range. Generally speaking, this is a tolerable level to most people. Levels are now.in the 65 to 70 dBA range, which are levels that begin to annoy people. Therefore, reversing the problem will take time, effort, money, and will come about only through the'application of 'a variety of mitigation measures. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL - Source Controls A.. Quiet Pavements Research and testing of "quiet pavements" is ongoing in Europe, at the Federal' level in the U.S., and within CDOT. The research is aimed at determining if certain asphalt pavements produce less noise than others, if the reduction lasts over time, and if the pavements are as durable as those currently in use. Results to date indicate that certain pavements (Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA), open- graded friction course (OGFC), .rubberized, and others such as NovaChip) could provide a noise reduction of 2 to 4 dBA versus CDOT's typical Superpave mix, at least initially. However, the issues of the longevity of this reduction,. and of durability are not as completely understood. Based on research and testing conducted by CDOT and others, the lowest noise levels are achieved when a small aggregate size is used in the asphalt mix design. CDOT has currently committed to using a SMA mix foi use on.the next scheduled 1-70 overlay project through Vail. It is also recommended that Vail continue to work with COOT, our congressional delegation and the private sector on innovative pavement types as a solution to 1-70 noise. CDOT has completed the overlay using SMA from Mile Marker 172- Mile Marker 180. We. will present results of before and after noise readings at the council meeting. Path Controls A. Path Mitigation by Area The major emphasis of the final report was the identification, modeling and results of proposed path mitigation along the 1-70 corridor through Vail. The results of this work will be presented at the next council meeting. The results however, show that barriers do not provide as much protection as originally envisioned. Hankard Environmental has analyzed the following barriers, 3-foot tall Type 7 rail, 8 and 10-foot tall steepened slope. barrier, and 15 and 20-foot tall noise walls to predict the amount of noise reduction from each type of barrier for areas along 1-70. The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will achieve is the result of the relationship between the height of the barrier with respect to the surrounding topography, relative location of all roads and receivers, ground type, and traffic conditions. The town has budgeted $ 250,000/ year to build up a funding source. The current fund balance is slightly over $9 million. The funds would be used to implement a noise. wall demonstration project A demonstration project to be properly tested would need to be a minimumof a half mile and would be in the $ 2M range.: B. Continue to Exhaust Berming Opportunities Berms require a footprint of 40 to 90 feet to accommodate "a 10-foot tall berm. Review of 1-70 through Vail indicates that there are still areas where earthen/sand storage berming can be built and would provide some noise reduction: These areas are generally located east of the golf course. The town entered into a private sector agreement on 3106, which required an separate Intergovernmental agreement with CDOT which was entered into in 4108. Design work is underway on the TOV/private property parcel. Berm work has begun on the TOV%CDOT parcel in East Vail. C. Cover 1-70 According to Hankard this alternative should always be "considered, because it offers the-best noise reduction of any recommended measure. Placing 1-70 in a. cut-and-cover tunnel through all or part of Town would, certainly be a significant, complex, expensive project. It should be noted that tunnels require full-time staff and equipment, thus have a high recurring cost: If the proposed 1-70 Dowd Canyon tunnel comes to fruition, the challenge of providing full time staff and equipment may be eased-by the proximity of that tunnel facility to one in Vail. Lacking a Dowd Canyon tunnel, Hankard recommends consideration of shorter, multiple tunnels that may not require fully staffed tunnel facilities. This could be accomplished by placing developments over the highway consisting. of one or more buildings along with some extended plaza-like space. These could. be placed in critical noise areas. This would also provide a north-south connection for pedestrians. Care would need to be taken regarding noise from the portals. A second alternative to the cut/cover concept of .I-70 in its: current location is. the possibility.of relocating 1-70 via tunnel to another location.. Initial looks at this ; concept has produced favorable results. A full tunnel feasibility study evaluating short versus long tunnels, safety, and life cycle cost issues would be the next, step if Vail wants td: pursue covering 1-70. Initial tunnel report completed.. Receiver Controls A. Advise Residents on Do-1t-Yourself Noise Control Solution Individual property owners can reduce noise at their homes and businesses by constructing small barriers (berms and/or walls), placing outdoor use areas such as patios in more quiet parts of their property, installing acoustic windows in select locations, and otherwise sealing the highway side of their homes. We recommend that Hankard Environmental develop, a brief,how-to document that can be made available to townspeople (i.e. distributed, placed.on website, etc.) The town of Vail produced an educational brochure for residents use and conducted free Noise Audits of residents in summer of 06. ti B. Strengthen Design Review Process Hankard recommends Vail require new developments and re-developments along 1-70 to consider noise at the very earliest stages of design. Outside recreation areas should be somehow shielded from the highway. Inside areas should be specified with adequate windows. Exposed decks facing the highway should be avoided. Hankard has drafted some guidelines for the Town's consideration. This is critical to the potential redevelopment of Timber Ridge, Roost Lodge and the West Vail Master Plan area. Chamonix Master Plan these issues were brought to. the attention of the design team were considered in the site layout and building construction techniques recommended. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The list of recommendations from Hankard Environmental are comprehensive and, in some Icases, will require additional research and review. However, staff recommends taking immediate action on the following next steps: • Continue to direct staff.to work with CDOT to facilitate use of "quiet" asphalt in all future asphalt work in Vail. _ Work complete from MM 172-180. • Continue, use of sand storage berms along 1-70 in Vail and work to obtain approvals from private property owners to expand the sand storage berm project onto. private properties, where feasible. In progress • Continue speed reduction campaign. See attached police memo. • Continue to address noise mitigation as a major focus of the 1770 PETS, and the proposed Vail Pass Environmental Assessment (EA). On going • Continue to have the Town of Vail heavily involved with the 1-70 corridor coalition. On going • Work with interested parties to further test the waters on the ultimate long term solution of either cut/cover 1-70 or relocate 1-70. No third parties at 'this time 5. ATTACHMENTS Vail Police, Memo 10/16108 Living with 1 70 Noise in Vail brochure The full report can be viewed on the Town of Vail website Vailgov.com within the box projects and issues 170 noise mitigation and then click Evaluation of Highway Noise Mitigation Alternatives for Vail Colorado, Hankard Environmental Department of Police TO: Town of Vail Council Members FROM: Dwight Henninger, Chief of Police DATE: October 16, 2008 RE: 65 Max Campaign, an Education and Enforcement Traffic Safety Strategy on I-70 Council Members, An education and enforcement campaign effort on Interstate 70, known as the 65 Max Campaign, was introduced in April 2004. The implementation, aimed at increasing road safety and reducing highway noise, has proven to be a success. Enforcement efforts to reduce speed on the Interstate focus on officers citing drivers with average speeds of 82 mph in 2008. A significant decrease from 2004 when the average cited speed was 86 mph and it has decreased every year. As of October 5, the Vail Police Department has spent at least 868 hours of dedicated patrol on I- 70 actively enforcing moving traffic violations such as speeding, careless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving under revocation and excessive noise violations: The number of accidents on I-70 has increased slightly in 2008. This is due to adverse winter road and driving conditions experienced in the first quarter of 2008. . Another component of the 65 Max Campaign, is to decrease the noise emitted from the commercial trucks traveling on the Interstate. In August, Colorado Department of Transportation used noise abating asphalt while repaving I-70 through Vail. Based on Vail . Police Officers utilizing a hand-held noise meter, we have not found any trucks exceeding the allowable decibel level on the Interstate since the noise abating asphalt was installed. As of October 16, we have cited I I commercial vehicles and warned 5 commercial vehicles for the year. We are also having an effect on commercial drivers' speed and driving behavior just by our mere presence on the Interstate. The truck drivers'. CB radios become very active alerting all truckers to our presence. Based on this, we use another traffic safety strategy of placing a Speed Awareness'Mannequin aka SAM, in a decoy vehicle parked at the emergency turnarounds. An additional traffic safety strategy that will be effective this winter will be the use of electronic variable speed limit signs at both the chain up and chain down areas in Vail. The speed limit in these areas will be reduced from 65 mph to 55 mph when the chain law is in effect. These areas will be actively patrolled by both Colorado State Patrol and the Vail Police Department and the decrease in speed limit will be enforced. A summary of the Vail Police Department education and enforcement efforts for the 65 Max Campaign is attached. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or comments. VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT '65 Max Campaign 2004/ 2005/ 2006/ 200.7/'2008 YTD Summary =of I-70 Education and Enforcement Program A/1912004 2005 Hours of Patrol time on I-70 984 1159 Number of Citations Issued for Speeding 109 244 Average Speed of Citations Issued 86 mph 84 mph Number of Summonsed Arrests 53 81 Number of Custodial Arrests 52 25 Number of Warnings Issued 775 760 Accidents on I-70 87 146 2006, 2007 10/05/08 2234 17.10 868 750 617 246 83 mph 83 mph 82 mph 87 .105 64 59 47 35 865 573 264 103 108 9'4 l0.4L 08 VA"Ory Roles and Responsibilities Of t -le Town of Vail Boards and Staff The purpose of this document is to clarify the responsibilities of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, Planning & Environmental Commission, Town Council and staff on various applications reviewed by these agencies Summary of general distinctions between the DRB and the PEC on development Applications: Planning and Environmental Commission: Desien Review Board: The PEC's review of most applications is focused . on large-scale issues such as ayr..,,,.Iateness of the use, impacts of the development on the development objectives of the Town, economic impacts of proposed uses, impacts on neighborhood, traffic impacts, pedestrian access, general environmental impacts, general impacts of bulk and, mass on neighboring sites, and the like. The PEC is not, responsible for such things as architectural details, roof pitch, materials, facade treatments, landscaping, etc., as this is the responsibility of the DRB. The DRB's review of applications is focused on only those, issues contained in the design guidelines such as_ ultimate,bulk, mass, and articulation of structures, roof pitch, proposed materials, color, landscaping, etc. . The DRB is not responsible for'issues related to the economics impacts of a development, the proposed use, off-site traffic impacts, mitigation of development impacts on public mfiastructure, etc. The PEC shall: • Ensure plan meets the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations (setbacks, GRFA, density, building height, site coverage) • Evaluate the impacts of the development on adopted TOV policies (Land use plan, Vail Village Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan) • Evaluate the impacts of a development on the neighborhood, traffic, air and light and general bulk and mass (potential off-site impacts) The DRB shall: • Review the r..,,osal for compliance. with Chapter 11. Design Guidelines, Vail Village Urban Design Considerations,,Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Architectural Design Guidelines, Streetscape Master Plan • .. Evaluate site layout and on-site, circulation •, Evaluate building architecture including detailed bulls and mass review based on design guidelines • Evaluate all structure materials, colors, etc. • Evaluate a development's impact on the natural • Evaluate tree and vegetation impacts and environment proposed landscape plans • Evaluate impact of the proposed use or structure on the community, traffic, etc. • Evaluate grading plans • Evaluate lighting and signage plans -1- I Division of Responsibilities For Specific Application Types Town Council/PEC/DRB/Staff ® Design Review Application (DRB only) Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC has NO review authority on a DRB application, but must review any accompanying PEC application as prescribed herein. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB is responsible for fatal approvalldenial of a DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the proposal for. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks - Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations, the Vail Streetscape Master Plan staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff may also 4rY.., re DRB applications of minimal complexity as defined in the Zoning Regulations. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -2- ® 250 proposals Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC has NO review authority on a 250 application.. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB is responsible for final approvalldenial of a 250 application.. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the proposal for: Compliance with the minimum landscaping and site development standards required (i.e., landscaping, paved parking, underground utilities, removal of disallowed building materials, compliance with light standards, etc.) - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - RemovaUPreservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks - Compliance with the design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations, the Vail Streetscape Master Plan staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff may also approve DRB applications of minimal complexity as defined in the Zoning Regulations. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -3- H Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transp.,.:«?:on facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the k,...I osed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for. - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks -4- _ I Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with app... vals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -5- ® Variance Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of the proposed variance and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning.. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal int,.F.,, :on and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the k„.rerty and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, a,,,.„.ral with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -6- Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a Major Exterior Alteration. The PEC shall review the proposal for: - Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Compliance with the goals and requirements of the Lionshead Redevelopment'Master Plan (except design guidelines) Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a Major Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of.building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location'and. design of satellite dishes Provision, of outdoor lighting - Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan staff: The staff is responsible, for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans cont.,.... to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also adyises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines: Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the -. -,.erty and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -7- ® Major Exterior Alteration (CC1 and CC2) and Minor Exterior alteration (CC1 and CC2) Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approvaUdenial of a Major/Minor Exterior Alteration. The PEC shall review the v..,yosal for: - Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA Site coverage - Landscape area - Paridng,and loading Compliance with the goals and requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail C.,...r: Qhensive Plan Compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations with respect to the following: - Pedestrianization - Vehicular pen;.- a: on - Streetscape framework - Street enclosure - Street edge - Building height - Views - Service/delivery - Sun/shade analysis. The PEC's approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping." Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a Major or Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying DRB application.. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the r..,rosal for: - Architectural c.,, w tibility with other structures,, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on-site . Acceptability. of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves; overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking,. and site distances Location and design of satellite. dishes " Provision of outdoor lighting Compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and design considerations 't -8- t Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with a,,,,.?, gals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -9- 0 ® Special Development District and. Major Amendment Order of Review. Generally, applications will be reviewed j rrst by the PEC for impacts of useldevelopment, then by the DRB for compliance ofproposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC -shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent F,...rerties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Pa.k..g And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. C.,...F.ehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable- elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans: E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the p.. Ferty on which the special development district is r..posed. F. 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. G. Traffic:. A circulation system designed for both-vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order.to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will.maintain`a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions,"setbacks, height, density control,-site coverages, landscaping and parking Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has; NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB, \ application' The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into .landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site -10- l Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a -site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the propertyand provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect.to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on art,.., gal, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The. Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. 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. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. P,.l.:,.g And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements'of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. 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. F. 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. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic" landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and ' efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. - Approval of development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking -11- F? Special Development District Minor. Amendment. staff: Action: The staff shall review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal and then report decision to the PEC. Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. 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. , B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading; Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. ' E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification a nd mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the _,,erty on which the special development district is proposed. F. 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 c.,......unity. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to vp' ,.ize and preserve natural features, re_ ,&?:on, views and function. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB ,.. ,.osal based on the following: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings, Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on-site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting Compliance with the design Guidelines of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan i -12- Plannine and Environmental Commission: The PEC is informed of the staff approval and may call-up item.as it deems necessary. ' . Town Council:- Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold`with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. i -13- ® Development Plan (General Use, District) Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of useldevelopment and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for fetal approvaUdenial of a development plan in a GU district . The PEC is responsible for prescribing the following development standards: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control., 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7.1, .l.:..g and loading. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a development plan in a GU district, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the' proposal for: Architectural compatibility with othei structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate pro vision for snow storage on-site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability, of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and. drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures circulation and access to a site, including parking, and site distances . Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and, plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design-guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the propertyand provides a staff evaluation.of the project with respect to.the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on apk-.ral, approval with conditions, or denial.. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions, of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. -14- i ® Zoning/Rezoning Plannine and Environmental Commission: I Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the r..,rosal and make a recommendation to. the Town Council on the compatibility of the F. ?Yosed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact ' on the general welfare of the c-......unity. Desien ReviewBoard: Action: The DRB has NO review:authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided The staff advises the applicant 8 to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. - Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoninglrezoning. The Town Council shall review and. arr. eve the Y..,Fosal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail C.....t,.:,hensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare, of the community. D?I Code TeztAmendment Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC :shall review the v „Yosal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Desien Review Board: . Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. - Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the r..,rosal based on the compatibility of.the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans. and impact on the general welfare of the. community. File: \\VAIL\DATA\EVERYONE\DOM\MEM099\PECROLES.DOC -15- . V. RESOLUTION NO.4 Series of 2007 RESOLUTION 4, SERIES OF 2007, A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 4, RECOMMENDATIONS - OVERALL STUDY AREA AND CHAPTER 5, DETAILED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS, LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT AMSTER PLAN, PUSUANT TO SECTION 2.8, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN, LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, TO INCLUDE TWO NEW PARCELS AND AMEND THE TEXT OF THE MAb i tR PLAN FOR THE AREA IDENTIFIED AS "WEST LIONSHEAD", AND St i i ING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the Vail Town Council adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 1999, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance 3, Series of 1999, which amended the Zoning Regulations and created Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts; and WHEREAS, Section 2.8 of Master Plan outlines a procedure for amending the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on December 11, 2006, and has forwarded a recommendation of approval, with modifications, of the amendment to the Town Council by a vote of 4-1-0 (Jewitt opposed); and WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to include two new parcels and amend the text of the Master Plan for the area identified as "West Lionshead" to facilitate the redevelopment of the area and creation of a new portal to the mountain; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed amendment improves and enhances the effectiveness of the Master Plan without negatively affecting the goals, objectives, and policies prescribed by the Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: The Town Council of the Town of Vail hereby amends the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as follows: (in part) CHAP i ER 4 Recommendations Overall :Study Area This section of the master plan addresses., issues that affect Lionshead as a whole. These issues - and, recommendations to address them - should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead redevelops. 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead The Lionshead resort area (that portion. of the study area. north of Gore Creek) is a mixed-use urban environment with several discemible land- use sub-areas, or, "hubs" (see Map N). Although the hubs . overlap somewhat, there is no consistent and comprehensive 'pedestrian connection between them. The primary goal of the master plan is to create a visually interesting and functionally, efficient pedestrian environment that connects the hubs to create a_ cohesive and memorable resort environment. 4.1.5 West Lionshead - Residential/Mixed-Use Hub .The wester end of Lionshead, currently undeveloped, is home to parking lots, the Vail Associates service yard, the Vail sanitation plant, the old 'town shops, -a . former gas station, the Vail Professional Building, and Cascade Crossing. This area of Lionshead is generally under utilized and from an aesthetic standpoint is not in keeping with what the Town would like to see Lionshead. become ?as it'redevelops.in the coming years. The. Town of Vail does place ahigh value on maintaining the office and retail areas in West Lionshead and any redevelopment should reasonably increase -the. square footage of existing office and have "no net loss" of retail square footage in West'Lionshead. . With their recent acquisition of additional properties in this area, Vail Resorts has the opportunity to bring lift service to this part of Lionshead. Lift service brings with .it great potential for`the re-. development of this area and in doing so expand all of Lionshead to the west with improved pedestrian connections, new retail and office activity and other improvements. While lift access will certainly energize this area during the winter months, attention should be given to creating a year-round attraction within this area of Lionshead (see detailed plan recommendations in Chapter 5) The master plan recommends that this hub become a residendaU mixed use area with an emphasis on meeting the needs of both the local community and our guests. Appropriate uses could include high density residential development, lodging, community and visitor. based office and retail space, employee housing and parking, bus or transit functions and a ski lift connection to Vail Mountain. The catalyst for this mixed use hub is ski lift access to 2 Vail Mountain. Consideration should be given to integrating employee housing into the redevelopment of West Lionshead in accordance with the Town's employee housing policies and regulations. To the extent possible development patterns in this area should reflect north-south orientation of buildings, visual penetrations to the mountain, and a pedestrian oriented environment. The degree of north-south building orientation may be difficult given the relatively narrow east-west orientation of this area. In addition, the introduction of ski lift access in this location creates a catalyst for an structured public parking facility. All service and delivery demands created by development in this area shall be accommodated on-site. The site will continue to accommodate the existing and potentially expanded functions of the Vail sanitation plant. The mountain service yard could be reduced in size, as some functions can be moved to less central locations. It may also be possible to relocate the entire mountain service yard to a new location in the West Lionshead area which would allow for greater flexibility in the redevelopment of this site. However as the area develops it is critical that new uses be connected to the primary pedestrian corridors and that they be served by the Town of Vail in-town transit system. 4.5 Public Transportation An efficient transit system is critical to the character and environmental quality of any pedestrian-oriented resort. Goals identified by the master plan regarding transit include: 4.5.1 Connection to West Lionshead West Lionshead consists of the West Day Lot, the Vail Associates service center, the sanitation plant, the Holy Cross lot, the former gas station site, the Vail Professional Building, and Cascade Crossing. Because it is an area of potentially significant growth, it is important that it be fully integrated into the Town of Vail transit system. The West Lionshead properties are at the outside edge of the acceptable walking distance to the ski yard (1200 feet). With a mixed use development in the area which integrates a ski portal, retail space, office space and residential development, transit service to this area and interconnections to other portals will be critical to develop in the future. In addition, the update of the Vail Transportation Master Plan shall provide direction on the ultimate location of a Lionshead Transit Facility along with needed interconnections between ski portals, regional transit stops, and other transportation modes. The addition of a ski lift in this area would make this area more viable to redevelopment as it would be within the acceptable walking distance of a lift (1,200 feet). 3 4.5.2 Maximum Efficiency and Utilization The following recommendations . are ' made _ to enhance the efficiency.and functionality of the Lionshead transit connections in anticipation of future redevelopment in the area: 4.5.2.1 Relocate the Regional Transit Stop It, is recommended that the Lionshead regional transit stop, currently located at the Lionshead Place cul-de-sac, be relocated to, the proposed north day lot transportation center.. This will provide a Lionshead connection between the regional transit system and the Town of Vail transit' system. In. addition, visitors and employees coming to. Lionshead by regional bus will arrive at a defined. portal instead of the current "back door" on Lionshead Place: Finally, this will remove the large regional buses from West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place. It may be possible to locate elements of a regional transit stop, in the West Lionshead area in conjunction with a new ski lift, and parking facility. However, given its location on the _ periphery of Lionshead, this area may not be. the . most 'viable location for a regional transit' stop. Notwithstanding the above, facilities for skier. drop-off, private shuttle vans and Town of Vail in-town buses should be included in the design of the ski lift and parking facility. In 2006, the Town of Vail initiated an update of the Vail Transportation Master Plan. In addition, the Town initiated a development competition for. the Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment, which would include a transit facility. It is anticipated that the Transportation'. Master Plan update along with the conclusion of the Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment process will provide direction on the ultimate location for a Lionshead Transit Facility and/or the type of transit facilities that may be necessary in West Lionshead. 4.6 Vehicular and .Pedestrian Circulation 4.6.1 Interstate Highway 70 1-70 is the primary vehicular circulation corridor for the Vail Valley and 'is critically important to the economic health of the Vail community. It does, however, create both a visual and physical division between the south and north sides of Vail, as well as consuming a significant amount of land.' As Vail continues to grow over time it is strongly recommended that the ideas of potentially burying or bridging 1-70 through the Town of Vail be studied and the potential benefits and impacts' considered. Specifically, consideration should be given to securing the air-rights over 1-70 so that future development and circulation scenarios are not precluded. 4 4.6.2 South Frontage Road Recommendations outlined below address potential re-alignment of portions of the frontage road, ingress and egress improvements, bicycle/ pedestrian improvements, and visual improvements. For a detailed discussion of capacity and the impacts of future development on the frontage road, see the traffic impact study contained in appendix A. Figure 4-9 depicts potential redevelopment without the realignment of the Frontage Road while Figure 4-9a depicts redevelopment with a partial realignment of the Frontage Road. 4.6.2.1 Potential Realignment The concept of realigning the South Frontage Road at the western end of the study area grew out of public discussions about land development and traffic flow in West Lionshead. Relative to traffic flow, realignment will remove the conflict that now exists between through- traffic and mountain service vehicles (snow-cats and snowmobiles) entering and exiting the Vail Associates service yard. Realignment will position the road to the north of most new development, thus reducing the potential for conflicting turning movements. Regarding future land use, the realignment of South Frontage Road will allow the west day lot and the service yard to be combined into a contiguous development parcel. This is an important consideration for the development conceptually depicted in figure 4-9a, and it would be necessary if the service yard property is used for a secondary public parking facility or other uses. Any existing parking on the West Day Lot must be replaced within the Lionshead study area. Through the Transportation Master Plan update it is anticipated that a significant traffic control device will need to be installed in the West Lionshead area. Such a device may include a round about. Specffic considerations regarding realignment are. a. Proposed Alignment The proposed realignment of the South Frontage Road is depicted in figure 4-9a. Critical design issues include the width of the road and the radius of the curves. Both of these factors will be important in reducing the speed of vehicles entering the Lionshead area and the amount of land consumed by the two curved road sections. Cooperation between property owners, developers, the Town of Vail, and the Colorado Department of Transportation will be 5 necessary to implement the realignment of the Frontage Road. b. West Lionshead Circle Connection It is proposed that West Lionshead Circle connect back to the frontage road at the west side of the Vail Spa. The alignment depicted in figure 4-9a terminates perpendicular to the frontage road and does not require the acquisition of private property. A new parcel of developable land, suitable for offices or non- resort retail, would be created on the southeast comer of this intersection. c. Forest Road Connection Forest Road could be realigned to cross through the newly created development panel, providing access to that site and connecting at right angles to the frontage road. Another alternative that should be considered is to connect Forest Road to West Lionshead Circle via the existing Frontage Road right- of-way. d. Transit and Emergency Vehicle Corridor A transit and emergency vehicle corridor should remain in the existing alignment of the frontage road. This connection is necessary to provide a through- transit route to the west end of Lionshead and also keeps in place the existing utility corridor. e. Feasibility of Realignment The ability to realign the frontage road will be heavily influenced by costs, CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), and the Federal highway administration. Future west Lionshead developments will require significant upgrades and widening of South Frontage Road, potentially including the widening or reconstruction of the bridge over Red Sandstone Creek. The cost of realigning the frontage road is in addition to the mandatory costs of improving the road. Future Frontage Road Re-alignment The opportunity may exist to re-locate the Frontage Road the full length of the West Lionshead planning area. The benefit of this alternative would be to eliminate the "Frontage Road barrier" between the Holy Cross site and the Vail Professional Building. While this alternative would require coordination with other surrounding land owners, it could warrant further study and evaluation in the future. 6 4.6.7 Simba Run Underpass Currently the Town of Vail has only two north/south access points between the North Frontage Road and South Frontage Road between Main Vail and West Vail. It has been contemplated that an additional north/south connection be established west of Cascade Crossing. The need for this underpass will be accelerated as a result of the Town's redevelopment plans for Timber Ridge, West Vail and West Lionshead. The redevelopment of the West Lionshead area should be done in a manner that encourages this new connection to be established in the future. It is recommended that the proposed amendments to the Vail Transportation Master Plan provide direction on when public improvements on the Frontage Road need to occur and how they are paid for between public and private funds. The current boundaries of the Lionshead Urban Renewal Authority should be amended to include the location of the Simba Run underpass. 4.8 Parking 4.8.3 Public Parking 4.8.3.3 Potential New Parking Sites To respond to the projected parking demand increase discussed in the traffic study, it is strongly recommended that all town-wide parking opportunities be examined or re-examined prior to any final planning or parking construction. Specific public parking opportunities in Lionshead include: a. Lionshead Parking Structure The existing Lionshead parking structure is a logical location for expanded public parking because it is already owned by the Town of Vail. Also, the structure is conveniently located between the proposed civic center on the east and the main portal to the Lionshead pedestrian mall on the west. No other location offers visitors such ease of access. A self-ventilating split deck structure, the garage has six half decks, each holding approximately 200 vehicles (1,200 spaces in total). The addition of one complete level would increase the structure by 400 spaces, two complete new levels by 800 spaces. Snow removal is an issue in the addition of new decks. The top deck of the structure is cleared manually with front-end loaders. Additional decks will make it impossible to continue this method, as the intemal dimensions of the structure will not accommodate front- end loaders. In addition, the construction of a new 7 delivery staging area on the west end of the structure will remove the snow storage area presently used. Alternatives include heating the upper deck, providing for an alternate snow removal access road to the upper deck, and construction of a roof over the entire structure. Public input during the master plan process has indicated the importance of the eastward view, across the top of the parking structure, toward the Vail Village as motorists travel east along the South Frontage Road and I-70. Future expansion plans of the Lionshead parking structure should consider the potential impacts expansion could have on this view plane. Also an issue is the necessary structural reinforcement of the existing facility to support the weight of additional decks. b. West Lionshead The construction of a new public parking facility at the west end of Lionshead has been a planning consideration since the completion of the Vail Transportation Master plan in 1991.- This site is currently undeveloped (except for the Vail Associates maintenance yard) and is large enough to meet projected parking demand. It is well located in relation to the potential new eastbound I-70 access ramps. The viability of a new public parking facility in this location would be enhanced by bringing lift service to this area. The construction of a new public parking facility would address the existing deficiency of off-street parking on peak days and the shifting demand of parking created by the introduction of a new ski lift in West Lionshead. It is anticipated that the new public parking structure would contain a approximately 400 public parking spaces, which would be in excess of any parking requirements generated by proposed development. The update of the Vail Transportation Plan should provide final direction on the location and quantity of additional public parking spaces in the Town of Vail. The location of additional public parking should consider where parking is most optimal for both guests and employees, year round utilization, mountain operations, and overall traffic circulation. Given the location for this parking facility, it had been assumed that regular transit or shuttle service would be necessary because of its distance from the retail core area and the ski yard (greater than a 1200-foot walking radius). However, the location of the parking structure would be proximate to the 8 new lift and as such the need for regular shuttle service would be minimized. However, some provisions for bus stops and/or a transit facility should be considered for the parking structure. 4.9 Housing 4.9.4 Potential Housing Sites Following are specific sites that have been identified as suitable for locals and employee housing (see Map IAA. 4.9.4.3 Vail Associates Service Yard Holy Cross Site, Vail Professional Building, Cascade Crossing, North Day Lot, and the former gas station site All redevelopment in West Lionshead will need to conform to the Town's housing policies and requirements. In order to create activity and vibrancy in West Lionshead it is appropriate to include some dispersed employee housing opportunities for permanent local residents in proposed developments in the area consistent with these policies. Perhaps the most promising locations to replace the Sunbird affordable housing project and to conform to the Town's housing policies and requirements for new employee housing generation in Lionshead are the North Day Lot, Vail Associates service yard, and Holy Cross site. However, housing is not the only use these three properties will need to support The North Day lot is considered to be the preferred location for a significant housing project in Lionshead to replace the Sunbird affordable housing project and provide housing for new employee generation. The North Day Lot may also need to accommodate a transit center on the ground level of the development site. Additionally, it may be necessary to develop a higher revenue-generating product on a portion of the Vail Associates service yard, Holy Cross, Vail Professional Building, and Cascade Crossing sites in order to defray the cost of road and infrastructure improvements. In planning the site, the following issues need to be considered: a. Densitv The site offers a unique opportunity to achieve significant density. While it is important that buildings here be visually consistent with the overall character of Lionshead, the desire to maximize the housing potential may make appropriate the following deviations from standard development parameters. First, it may be appropriate to allow for a greater overall building height than is otherwise allowed under the Lionshead Architectural Design Guidelines. Any increase in building height will need to be reviewed on 9 a case by case basis by the Town of Vail, and any eventual building height will still need to be visually appropriate for this location. Second, it is recommended that the standards for density (units per acre) be increased at this location to allow for a greater number of employee housing units. Third, it may be appropriate to reduce the parking requirements for employee housing at this location. 4.9.4.4 Red Sandstone Parkin Area The parking lot and Town of Vail transit stop at the base of the Red Sandstone Elementary school were identified as a potential site for employee or locals housing because of its proximity to the elementary school, the 1-70 pedestrian overpass and the transit stop. However, the access (vehicular and pedestrian), safety and functional programming needs of the elementary school must take priority in any potential housing development scenario. 4.9.4.5 Old Town Shops The Old Town Shops, located just west of the Vail sanitation plant, were identified as potential employee housing locations during the master planning process. There are, however, other significant demands on this site, including potential expansion of the sanitation plant and the need for a new snowcat mountain access route from the Vail Associates service yard. In addition, the presence of the sanitation plant on one side and the existing gas station on the other reduces the desirability of this location for employee or locals housing. (in part) CHAPS.LR 5 Detailed Plan Recommendations This section of the Lionshead Master plan examines individual parcels and groups of parcels within the Lionshead study area, excluding the residential properties on the south side of Gore Creek. The intent of this chapter - and the Master plan as a whole - is to identify important functional relationships and visual objectives within the district and to propose a framework for the long-term redevelopment of Lionshead. The document does not intend to limit or eliminate ideas relating to specific parcels; any proposals consistent with this framework should be considered even if they are not anticipated in this document. The parcels addressed here are organized generally from east to west, starting with the civic hub on the eastern end of the parking structure. 10 5.9 North Day Lot The north day lot should be developed as a community transportation center to consolidate skier drop-off, local and regional transit, local and regional private shuttles, and charter bus drop-off and pick-up (see figure 5-13). A below-grade service and delivery facility could be constructed underneath the transit facility. By relocating these functions from their existing locations to one easily accessible location, this would improve the quality of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in Lionshead and create a significant new pedestrian portal into the center of the Lionshead retail mall. Based upon the results of the traffic study (see appendix A), the conceptual program for this facility is as follows: a. Skier drop-off.- Nine spaces are recommended at a minimum, but more should be built if possible to accommodate other program elements. b. Town of Vail transit' Two bus spaces are recommended to accommodate the West Vail transit loop and the possibility for an eastbound in-town shuttle stop. c. Regional transit. One bus space is recommended d. Charter buses. Three to four bus spaces are recommended. e. Local and regional shuttles. Four shuttle van spaces are recommended at a minimum. A critical consideration in the planning and design of this facility will be its impact on the adjacent Landmark Tower and Townhomes and the Westwind. Depicted in figure 5-13a, a linear building is recommended at the southern edge of the site to screen the lower levels of the Landmark Tower from the transit center. This facility could house a bus shelter and waiting area, an information center, public restrooms, a small food and beverage operation, and an elevator core to the pedestrian mall level for ADA access needs. To the east, earthwork, landscaping, and/ or other screening measures should be considered to buffer the Westwind. A more comprehensive solution is to cover the facility with another level or two of development - perhaps for offices or employee housing - or with a roof. (Memorable European antecedents exist for grand, covered transportation centers.) Specifically, the design of the transportation center should address all impacts: visual, security, sound, and smell that may affect adjacent properties. Both the Westwind and the Landmark should be closely involved in the transit center planning and design process. Since the adoption of the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan, plans were developed to locate a Transit Center at the North Day Lot. Integrating the number of uses mentioned above and addressing the neighborhood concerns regarding a transit center prompted the Town of Vail to evaluate altemative locations for a transit center. Alternative locations include: • West Lionshead • Lionshead Parking Structure 11 North Day Lot In 2000, . the Town of -Vail initiated an update of the -Vail Transportation Master Plan. In addition, the Town initiated a development competition for the Lionshead Parking Structure which would include a transit facility. It is recommended that the Transportation Master Plan update along with the conclusion of the Lionshead Parking Structure RFP process provide direction on the ultimate 'location for a Lionshead Transit Facility.. 5.17 West Day Lot/ Vail Associates Service-Yard/ Holy Cross Site/Gas Station Site Nail Professional Building/ Cascade Crossing Planning for the westem end of. Lionshead must consider two different scenarios: the realignment of South Frontage Road and its retention in the existing alignment. While the introduction of lift service is viable in either of these Frontage Road alternatives, site. design will vary depending upon what happens to the Frontage Road alignment. See Figures 4-9a, and 4-9b for the Frontage Road realignment alternatives. Notwithstanding these different Frontage Road scenarios there should be an increase of existing office square footage and "no net loss" of retail square footage as a result of the redevelopment of these parcels. Higher densities and building heights may be appropriate in' this area, particularly to encourage the development ` of employee housing. However, any development must meet the overall character and visual intent of the master plan and be compatible with the adjacent existing development of the Marriott and the Vail Spa. As compared to a separate, free-standing portal, West Lionshead is considered a part of the greater Lionshead area. In order for this -area to be successful, it is important to have a strong pedestrian connection with the rest of Lionshead. A strong connection along the Gone Creek corridor already exists: Streetscape improvements along West Lionshead Circle between Concert Hall Plaza (currently the western end of Lionshead retail influence)'. and the Ritz-Carlton Residences will strengthen existing conditions, and in doing so, improve the viability of mixed uses in West Lionshead. Improvements to street-lighting, walking surfaces, seating areas and public art are just some examples of what could strengthen this corridor and in doing so further integrate this area,-with the -rest of Lionshead. The ' development of a strong pedestrian connection between the -Lionshead Core area, and :the western side of Lionshead will encourage pedestrian activity in this area and in doing-so will energize all of West Lionshead During the winter months- the ski lift and associated parking will generate significant pedestrian traffic and activity. However, consideration should be given to how West Lionshead can be an active and vibrant place year-round. This could be accomplished'in any number of ways. For example, quality architecture and the creation of appealing 12 outdoor spaces in and of itself will encourage people to visit this area. This could be reinforced by a well-crafted program of specialty retailers, offices, and restaurants. An active program of public art, residential units that are used for "artists in residence ; a culinary school, improved access to and utilization of Gore Creek or Red Sandstone Creek for fishing or other purposes or specific recreation features such as a climbing wall are just some examples of design elements or land uses that could create a catalyst for activity. In conjunction with any application to development a new ski lift, a retaMcommercial market study which analyzes the area for the appropriate amount of square footage of retaillcommercial that should be included in the redevelopment of West Lionshead shall be provided. It is assumed that the development standards of Lionshead Mixed Use 1. or 2 will guide the design of redevelopment in this area. Notwithstanding the height allowances of these zone districts, building height and massing shall be responsive to the Gore Creek corridor, the interstate, and how building massing transitions at the westem end of Lionshead. Buildings at the westernmost end of West Lionshead shall gradually "step down" from the maximum allowable height limits of the Lionshead Mixed Use zone districts. Figure 5-25 provides a general depiction of how building height shall gradually lower at the western end of this study area. The intent of these height standards is that building height reduces by entire floor levels in the locations as generally depicted on Figure 5-25. Notwithstanding the height allowances depicted on Figure 5-25, buildings fronting directly along Gone Creek and the westem end of Lionshead shall express no more than three to four levels before "stepping back" to taller building mass. On the Interstate side of this area building design shall be articulated to avoid large expanses of shear/unbroken wall planes. a. Retention of Existina Frontaae Road Alianment If the Frontage Road remains in its current location the Maintenance Yard/Holy Cross parcels, the Vail Professional Building and /Cascade Crossing all remain viable development sites. The most viable site for a public parking facility would be the Maintenance Yard/Holy Cross parcels. While other lift locations are feasible, the old gas station site is a viable location for a base terminal. This location would require a grade separated pedestrian crossing over the Frontage Road to the Maintenance Yard/Holy Cross parcels. A strong east west oriented pedestrian corridor with ground floor retail uses would be necessary to create a strong connection between this area and the rest of Lionshead. Under this Frontage Road scenario the Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing could be developed as a contiguous parcel. It is assumed that these parcels would be re-zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use I. The Holy Cross site and the Vail Professional Building both abut Red Sandstone Creek. Any redevelopment of these parcels should consider how the Creek can be enhanced and made an asset or amenity of this redevelopment area. 13 b. Frontaae Road Realinment behind. the Maintenance Yard and Holy Cross'site The greatest benefit of this realignment alternative is that it results in one very large and contiguous development parcel and in doing so integrates the Maintenance Yard/Holy Cross site with the West Day' Lot by removal of the barrier created by the existing Frontage Road alignment. It also creates the best pedestrian environment in :creating an extension of the Lionshead .Retail area in that it provides the potential to establish a convenient and desirable pedestrian connection to- the rest of Lionshead. With this alternative the most viable site fora public parking facility would still, be the Maintenance Yar&Holy Cross parcels. With the re- location of the Frontage Road lift access out of the old gas station site would not require ? a grade separated pedestrian crossing to the Maintenance Yard(Holy Cross parcels. However, a grade separated crossing over the re-located Frontage Road would be needed to link the Holy Cross site with the Vail Professional Building. This alternative would also present the opportunity for relocating and/or enhancing Red 'Sandstone Creek to' make it more' accessible to the community and an aesthetically pleasing water feature. One possibility maybe. to pond the creek just south of the 1=70 corridor and `diverting all or a portion of the flow underneath the new Frontage Road in . order to bring "live water" through the western end of the -Holy Cross site. Any modification' or enhancement to the creek corridor would be subject to U. S. Army Corp of Engineers approval. A strong east=west oriented pedestrian corridor with ground floor - retail uses would be necessary to create a strong, connection between this area and the rest of Lionshead. 5.18 Old Town Shops The, old • town shops site had been targeted . • for a variety of 'uses throughout the master planning process, - including employee housing, expansion of the Vail sanitation plant, and' Vail Associates mountain services. These uses were thought to be appropriate for the site, but it was recognized they were all not compatible. In 2003 the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District purchased the old town shops site. The site was redeveloped with a surface parking lot... Additionally, in 2004 Vail Resorts constricted a bridge across the Gore Creek from this site to provide possible future mountain operations access to Vail Mountain. 5.20.' Eagle River Water and Sanitation District While this parcel would certainly be a viable development site, the costs to relocate uses at this site, particularly the treatment facilities, are very significant. For this reason, it is assumed that the treatment facilities will remain in their existing location. A viable alternative to relocating the. entire building would be to relocate the District's offices and construct "air- rights" development above and around the treatment. facility. 14 POTENTIAL BUS/TRANSIT STOP PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING AREA GROUND FLOOR RETAIL J MIXED USE ABOVE _ SKI AREA SUPPORT W/ SUB-GRADE MAINTENANCE GON DOLA PARKING STRUCTURE rim I i QVERPA!jS 15 ZAh L jj wopl-_ o` 0 1FIGURE 4-9 - EXISTING FRONTAGE ROAD ALIGNMENT / WEST LIONSHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ?? f?? POTENTIAL BUS/TRANSIT STOP PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING AREA JW' GROUND FLOOR RETAIL / MIXED USE ABOVE ® SKI AREA SUPPORT W/ SUB-GRADE MAINTENANCE GON DOLA PARKING STRUCTURE Q 16 t i FIGURE 4-9A - RE-ALIGNED FRONTAGE ROAD / WEST LIONSHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 1 , m .to e - PEDEBTRIANr PO RtA L 82.5' MAX ' - - 71' AVG 71.5' MAX 60' AVC 60.5' MAx" 49' AVG 'j ? ?' / • 25' SNOWCAT PEDESTRIAN EAS E M ENT r OVERPASS =s ?--- FIGURE 5-25 - WEST LIONSHEAD BUILDING MASS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 17 naw el ,f C, VAIL ROUNDABOUT loWN? +A L?MF CREEK f LiONSHEAD STUDY AREA TA.V_USFS 6 W NDARY WE 18 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD CONNECTION TO VVEST VAIL AND CASCADE VILLAGE PARCELS CURRENTLY WITHIN \ EXISTING LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA WEST LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA CASCADEVIILAGE POSSIBLE FUTURE SIN78A RUtI UNDERPASS 14P PRCXIh1ATE LOCATION) PARCELS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA SANDSTONE CREEK MAP A STUDY AREA LIONSHEAD IZEUEVELOPMENI .. I r N 11 1 A N. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2007. Rodney Slifer, Mayor, Town of Vail ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 19 12-71-1 CHAPTER 7 COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS 12-71-1 ARTICLE I. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU-2) DISTRICT SECTION: . 12-71- 1: Purpose 12-71- 2: Permitted And Conditional Uses; Basement Or Garden Level 12-71- 3: Permitted And Conditional Uses; Frst Floor Or Street Level. 12-71- 4: Permitted And Conditional Uses; Second Floor And Above 12-71- 5: Conditional Uses; Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building) 12-71-.6: ' Accessory Uses . , ._ 12-71- 7: Exterior Alterations Or Modifications 1241- 8: Compliance Burden 12-71- 9: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12-71-10: Setbacks 12-71-11:: Height And Bulk 12-71-12: Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre) 12.71-13:. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 12-71-14: Site Coverage 12-71-15:. Landscaping And Site Development 12-71=16: Parking And-Loading, 12-71-17:. Location Of Business Activity 12-71-18: Mitigation Of Development Impacts 12-71-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 2 district is intended to -pro- vide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dwelling's, lodges, hotels; fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial estab- lishments in- a clustered, unified develop- ment. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead, redevelop- ment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open.space. and other amenities'. appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and,uses and to.maintain' the desirable' qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site. develop- ment standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and..provide . incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district- was specifically devel- oped to provide incentives for properties to' redevelop. The ultimate goal of. these incen- tives is to create an economically Vibrant lodging, housing, .and commercial' core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross resi- dential floor. area,... building height; and den- sity over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment . master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment. consistent with the. Lionshead redevelop- ment master plan. Additionally, the incen- tives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements . adjacent.. to redevelop- ment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improve- ments, pedestrian/bicycle access, public Town of vast September 2006 Of 12-71-1 12-71-3 plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-2: PERMITTED AND CONDI- TIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substan- tially below grade. B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Child daycare centers. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishments. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Public or private lockers and storage. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Travel and ticket agencies. Type IV employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this. title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, sub- ject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provi- sions of chapter 16 of this title: Conference --facilities - and meeting rooms. Electronics sales and repair shops. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Major arcades. Multiple-family residential dwelling r units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and em- ployee housing units (type III (EHU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title). Theaters. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDI- TIONAL USES; v mkST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of September 2006 Town of Vail 12-71-3 the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: Banks, with walk-up teller facilities. Child daycare centers. Eating and drinking establishments. Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Travel and ticket agencies. Type IV employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Beauty and barber shops. Conference facilities and meeting rooms. Electronics sales and repair shops. 12-71-4 Financial institutions, other than banks. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and em- ployee housing units (type III (EHU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title). Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-4: PERMITTED AND CONDI- TIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The fol- lowing uses shall be permitted on those floors above the first floor within a structure: Lodges and accommodation units. Town of Vail Multiple-family residential dwelling units, timeshare units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and em- ployee housing units (type III (EHU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title). Type IV employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with September 2006 1 12-71-4 12-71-5 the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall, be permitted on second floors and higher above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Banks and financial institutions. Child daycare centers. Conference facilities, and meeting rooms. Eating and drinking establishments. Electronics sales and repair shops. Liquor stores. Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studios. Recreation facilities. Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services'. "'Theaters. Timeshare units and fractional fee clubs. Additional uses. determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection;': in accordance. with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-5: CONDITIONAL USES; GENER- ALLY (ON ALL LEVELS OF A BUILDING OIL OUTSIDE OF A BUILD- ING): The following -.-conditional uses shall be permitted; subject to issuance of a con- ditional use.permit in accordance with the provisions of.chapter 16 of this title: Automotive service stations. Bed and breakfasts. as further regulated'by section 12-14=18 of this title. Brew pubs. Child daycare centers. Commercial storage. Laundromats. Private outdoor recreation facilities, as a primary use. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities. Public or private parking lots. Public parks and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Television stations. Vehicle maintenance; service, repair, stor- age, and fueling. Warehouses. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this section, in accordance with the provisions of section 12-3-4 of this title_ (Ord. 29(2005), § 24: Ord. 17(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) §-2) September 2006 Town of Vail 12-71-6 12-71-7 12-71-6: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory. uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead mixed use 2 district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. . Loading and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and . accessory to permitted and conditional uses. Minor arcades. Offices, lobbies,. laundry, and other. facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses.. Outdoor dining decks and patios. Swimming- pools,- tennis courts, patios. or other recreation facilities customarily inci- dental to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other, uses-.customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12771-7: Ex a r.RIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building .or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which- adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has sub- stantial . off site , impacts (as deter- mined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environ- mental- commission at- A major exteri- or alteration in accordance with this chapter. and, section 12-3-6 of this title. Any : project which requires a condi- tional. use permit -shall- also. obtain approval of the planning and environ- mental commission in accordance with chapter, 16 of. this :title...Complete ap- plications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative . schedules developed by• the department of community de- velopment J or planning and environ- mental commission and design review board review. B. Submittal Items-Required: The follow- ing submittal items are required: Town of Vail 1. Application: An application. shall be made _by the.owner of the. building or the building owner's. authorized, agent or representative on a form. provided. by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be. authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all perti- nent requirements-of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The adminis- trator - shall _establish the e'submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification. application. A com- plete list. of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administra- tor and filed in the department of. com- munity development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified ;by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrat- September 2006 12-71-7 ed by the applicant that the informa- tion and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning docu- ments that comprise the Vail compre- hensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, draw- ings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commis- sion, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work ses- sion with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commis- sion shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The plan- ning and environmental commission may approve the application as sub- mitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commis- sion may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construc- tion is commenced and diligently pur- sued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for rea- sonable and unexpected delays as 12-71-11 long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 5(2003) § 12: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN: It shall be the burden of the appli- cant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environ- mental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead mixed use 2 district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead rede- velopment master plan and that the propos- al does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal sub- stantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-9: LOT AREA AND ibi i j& DIMEN- SIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area. (Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-10: SETBACKS: The minimum build- ing setbacks shall be ten feet (10') unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan as a build-to line. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-11: HEIGHT AND BULK: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71') with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead redevelop- ment master plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and stan- September 2006 Town of Vail 12-71-11 dards found in the Lionshead redevelop- ment master plan. Flexibility with the stan- dard, as incorporated in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, shall be afford- ed to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the design review board. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-12: DENSITY (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE): Up to a thirty three percent (33%) increase over the existing number of dwelling units on a property or thirty five (35) dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater shall be allowed. For the purpose of calculating density, employ- ee housing units, accommodation units, timeshare units, and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. Additionally, a "lodge dwelling unit", as defined herein, shall be counted as twenty five percent (25%) of a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density. A dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third ('/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 31(2001) § 5: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-13: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): Up to two hun- dred fifty (250) square feet of gross resi- dential floor area shall be allowed for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, or an increase of thirty three percent (33%) over the existing GRFA found on the property, whichever is greater. Multiple-family dwelling units in this zone district shall not be entitled to additional gross residential floor area under section 12-15-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) of this title. (Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-17 12-71-14: 5rir. COVERAGE: Site cover- age shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead rede- velopment master plan. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-15: LANDSCAPING AND bx x xt DE- VELOPMENT: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped, unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-16: PARIING AND LOADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half ('/2) the re- quired parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. (Ord. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS AC- TIN i i f: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed park- ing or loading areas, the outdoor dis- play of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the estab- lishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entranc- es and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. (Ord. 3(1999) § 2) September 2006 Town of Vail 12-71-18 12-71-18: Nom. iLGATION OF DEVELOP- MENT IMPACTS: Property own- ers/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their develop- ment on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Im- pacts 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 deter- mined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development pro- jects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, street- scape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, 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. 3(1999) § 2) 12-71-18 September 2006 Town of Vail 0 Sustainable' Communities 2010 TABLE of CONTENTS Executive Summary . Section I Quality of Life Indicator Matrix . Cu«,..A Levels of Service, Goals, Gaps, Costs and Methods to Close the Gaps Section H Narrative Gap Analyses Environmental Sustainability Community Separators . Parks Environmental Management System . Transportation Road Infrastructure Mass Transit . .Bike and Pedestrian Trails .Housing Workforce and .Senior Housing Social Capital Health Care . Dental Care Child Care . Assisted Living Section III Tools Fiscal Impact Tool: Site Stats . Communication and Collaboration Tools Build-Out Analysis . Mayor-Manager Collaborative Mapping Intergovernmental Agreements . Transportation Collaborative . Resources Statement of Commerci"esidential Activities . Cost to Serve Data Resources: Population Figures . Appendices A. Town and County Mayor-Manager Maps. B. Community Separators Maps i DRAFT 3 6 12 14 .15 17 17- 18 19 25 27 28: 29 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 41 _42 43 2 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • Sustainable Communities 2010 Executive Summary Purpose and Background: Eagle County Commissioners and staff have begun a comprehensive initiative called Sustainable Communities 2010.--This effort will provide local decision makers quantifiable "quality of life" data and information, along with suggested tools, in order to assist in decision making when developing public policy toward sustainable communities throughout Eagle County. The program is in direct support of our organizational mission statement, which is "To be the model of excellence for mountain communities by 2010." r. The purpose of Sustainable Communities 2010 is to first quantify resident's needs and levels of service, then recommend solutions to ensure impacts associated with growth are mitigated and adequate services provided, to meet the demands of the population. Sustainable Communities 2010 comprehensively considers the economic, social and environmental challenges that arise growth. Perhaps the most important aspect of the initiative is the sharing of this information with towns and other community leaders, through ongoing communication and collaboration. Why are we engaging in this exercise? Based on feedback the County received fi„?,.L a survey completed last winter, certain issues were identified by respondents that may impact their quality of life. In general, these threats are associated with: • Growth and Land Use • Transportation and Traffic Congestion • Affordable Housing and Cost of Living • Environmental Protection • Provision of Services (Health Care, Child Care, and Senior Care) Outcome: Sustainable Communities 2010 will seek to use open communication and collaboration with other local decision makers, resulting in a set of tools available for use in the formulation of public policy. Products will include:. • A gap analysis and report that identifies some key quality of life indicators on a countywide basis. For each indicator, the current level of service will be compared to the desired goal resulting in a potential gap in the service level. The challenge is to close that, gap (Sections I & II) • An economic and fiscal impact tool that is used to analyze site-specific deveh j,.uent proposals (Section III). • An updated countywide build-out analysis and associated visioning exercise that graphically show results of growth and development (Section III). 3 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • • Increased communication and collaboration efforts with community and town leaders whereby data can be shared and analyzed allowing for visioning and public policy creation (Section III). • Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's) on common land use and public policy goals (Section III). • A set of joint county-town maps that depict growth boundaries and high priority open space, locations for affordable housing and transit-oriented development, and locations of transportation improvement projects (Section III). • A continuation of the Transportation Collaborative identifying transportation issues along the I-70 corridor and seeking solutions and revenue sources (Section III). The following graphic shows the Sustainable Communities Initiative in the context of economic drivers, quality of life measures, and public policy decisions. • • Through the ongoing efforts of the Sustainable Communities 2010 initiative, the county commissioners goal is to create an open forum where information can be shared with all town and community leaders, for public policy formulation, by which all citizens can benefit. 4 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT E Section I: Quality of Life Indicator Matrix • 0 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • Quality of Life Indicator Matrix The first tool of this initiative is the Quality of Life Indicator Matrix (Figure 1), which quantifies cw.,..t level of service, gaps, future goals, and methods to decrease the gap toward meeting the goal. These indicators were completed in the areas of- • Environmental Sustainability o Community Separators o Parks o Environmental Management System • Transportation o County Roads o State Roads o Mass Transit o Pedestrian Trails ¦ Housing o Workforce o Senior housing ¦ Social Capital o Health Care o Dental Care o Child Care o Assisted Living • FIGURE 1 Environmental 1) Community Separators Moderate: The challenge is to preserve what currently exists. 1) To ,-a-,e and enhance community separation/ buffers that currently exist. 2) To reach the goal of 3,288 acres by year 2025, we need to preserve 219 acres/year. • 2) Parks Good: Incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County currently have 1,006 acres of parkland. Maintain current level of service: The standard is 7 acres of parkland/1000 population. 2010 Goal: 407 acres of parkland 2025 Goal: 570 acres of parkland. Analysis has identified 3,288 acres of private property located outside of municipal boundaries that would contribute to community To reach the goal of 3,288 acres by year 2025, we need to preserve 219 acres/year. Fee simple purchase of 3288 acres at today's value would • cost $90M (based on a value of • 830,0001ac.) At 219 acres/yr, the cost would be $6.57 M/yr. • Based on 1,006 acres of N.A. parkland in Eagle County, there is not ct...:...Jy a gap. Preserve public lands Preserve existing open spaces Encourage landscape enhancements/scree ning conservation easements Purchase fee simple Zoning overlays Implement growth boundaries Implement IGA's TDR I1 _.. Amend the LUR's to require parkland dedication for future developments 6 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • 3) Environmental Management System Electricity: Usage = $338,455 Natural Gas: Usage= $214,035 Renewable Energy: 0 Gas: 119,461 gal = $329,179 Diesel: 370,098 gal = $1,017,369 Solid Waste: 115,489 tons Recycling: 10,789 tons 2025 Goals: In most cases, the gap • • Electricity: 50% is the goal minus the reduction in use. current baseline. • 50% electricity However those real provided from numbers can be local renewable projected here. systems. • Biomass Solid waste: current • projects, baseline is 12 pounds geothermal, per day per person, and/or solar goal = 5, so gap is 7. thermal offset 30% heating needs. • Natural gas: 30% reduction. • Fuel: 50% overall mpg average increase • Fuel: 30% of fuel is from alternative sources (CNG, biofuels, electricity, etc.) • Reduce water consumption by 50%. • Solid waste: 5 lbs. per capita or less • Recycling: 50% diversion rate. ? 11 Energy Performance • Contracts: normally, cost is financed into the scope of • work/contract timeline to yield + annual cash flow. General cost for solar PV systems: $8000 per kilowatt. To meet the goal of 50% electricity generated by local systems, an • estimated 3000 KW (or 3 MW) would need to be installed, for an estimated straight cost of $2.4 M. However, PPAs would lump any costs into existing utility budgets. Biodiesel: neg- ligible cost inc. Install pellet boilers/fumaces: $85,000/unit. Assuming 4 similar systems are installed at other county facilities = $340,000. (Cost savings ROI needs further calculation.) 260,400 kWh wind credits offset 100% electrical usage. Cost $78,120. Higher tipping fees = positive cash flow, funds can be used toward further waste reduction (MRF, . composting PR, etc.) EPCs, lighting, heating, boiler retrofits. Incentives or invest capital in county-run renewable projects. Invest in highly efficient heating systems and controls. Invest in biomass/ pellet boilers for facilities as applicable. B30 Biodiesel for fleet. No vehicle/engine retrofits are required. A B30 mix (30% biodiesel, 709/6 petroleum diesel) is ..,.,,...mended for 3-season fleet use. Efficient irrigation systems/.,......,ls. Xeriscape landscaping designs for county facilities. Higher tipping fees, pay-as-you- throw prce.o..... Require recycling for construction projects. State-of-the-art recycling r..6.4.../ incentives is 7 Sustainable Communities 2010 i_ Quad-ity 0-f-L-ife Current Level of Indicators Service County Roads Moderate State Roads Poor to Moderate Maintain LOS C&D for roadways and Intersections Maintain LOS C&D for roadways and Intersections Mass Transit Alternative I A: At Current LOS without (Free-Fare ECO Free-Fare ECO ;...r?sion and growth Transit P..,6.?... Transit Program with • Promote Mass current Level of Transit - Energy Service Conservation • Reduce vehicle congestion - delay incl... ucture projects • Accessibility for all - system expansion • Improve operations Alternative 113: Increase ridership 50% See above. • Free-Fare ECO due to Free-Fare Transit Program with $4M • increased ridership Alternative IC: Increase LOS to include See above. Free-Fare ECO local feeder systems in Transit Program W/ Edwards & local feeder systems Eagle/Gypsum - $6M Alternative 2: Regional: Moderate Eco Transit Current Fare 1,000,000 trips/year; provide Regional System 500,000 rdtrips/year; regional 260 work day/year; transport.- 20% 1,923 riders/day; 3.9% increase; 2,308 of population served riders per day; 1,200,000 rdtrips/ year; 4.68% pop. served Alternative 2: Local Transit: Poor - no Provide Local Current Fare Local local feeder system in feeder system to Transit System Edwards, Mintum, Edwards, Eagle-Gypsum Mintum, Eagle- Gypsum (new) provide local transit Pedestrian Trails Moderate: 3 of6 Complete full community connections connection to all made Eagle Valley Communities by 2020. Planned core trail is 63 miles long, 33 constructed, 30 • miles remain to be constructed. Current LOS has low Capital Investment/reserve (from Consultant study on ridership) $238.01/capita $4,672.93/capita $2 million to cover lost revenue (from Consultant study on ridership) $900/capita $288/capita $600/capita DRAFT Road Impact Fees, State grants, Development Fees Road Impact Fees, State grants, Development Fees 1/6 cent sales tax increase to generate $2M 1/3 cent sales tax in,,..,•.,,, to generate $4M 1/2 cent sales tax increase to generate $6M State grants, fare revenue, sales taxes, Development fees State fare revenue, sales taxes, Development fees State grants, sales taxes, Development fees Sustainable Communities 2010 Workforce and Senior Housing Poor: 3,500 households in Eagle County are cost-burdened (pay more than 30% of AGI for housing) Maintain and improve housing stock affordable to Eagle County's workforce units currently. Keep-up: Residential - 35% of total sq. ft. affordable Commercial - 714 sq. ft. affordable per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial (Housing Authority and private-sector affordable housing developers to produce stock at break even). Keen un: $144/sq. ft. or compliance with Hsng. Gdlines. Health Care Dental Care Social Capital Moderate: Serving 2010 Goal: To 7,641 residents lack 54% of the uninsured. serve 80% of access to care. 23,967 primary care the uninsured, slots available for requiring Catch-un: 28,556 14,151 uninsured 25,510 add'1 ?., , tments persons. additional appointments Keen-un:3,332 annually. add'I appts by 2010. Poor: Serving less 2010 Goal: To than 1% of uninsured. serve 6% of the 48% of residents do uninsured not have adequate population. dental insurance. The Start up an only indigent dental indigent care care available in dental clinic county is a mobile and see 067 dental van, which residents by serves 180 low offering 2,187 income children (5- appt slots (1.6 18). On average, 989 annual procedures performed appointments over 234 visits per resident). This will meet 6% of the need. To catch un to 80% of need: $3.9M new dollars or $145/appointment. To keen un with 80% of need: an additional $233,567/yr by 2010. Growth lmnact: 3,289 sq. ft. of new res. dev = one new uninsured resident. 1,757 sq. ft. of new comm. dev. = one new uninsured resident. 26,125 residents lacking 1000/6 Catch Un= $3,983,198 adequate dental (not including start up costs) insurance (I in 3) Catch un: 3,144 appt >lots needed annually. Keep Un 2,080/yr additional appt slots will be required by 2010. Catch Un to 5.4% $383,935 new dollars. 1000/6 Keen Up: $301,600 additional by 2010. 5.4% Keen Un: $171,325 additional by 2010. Every 1,988 sq ft of new residential development brings in 1 new resident lacking access to dental :are. Every 1,062 sq ft of new :ommercial development brings in 1 new resident lacking access to dental care. DRAFT • Public-private housing developments. • Down-payment assistance. Housing Guidelines (keep up only). • Facilitate employer buy-downs. Obtain a Federal Community Health Center designation which will provide access to state and federal grants; develop a pro-forma to determine other types of revenue sources: client fees, donations, Medicaid, etc. Provide services through a Federally Qualified Health Center (see above) with a start -up dental clinic. • 0 9 • Sustainable Communities 2010 @ y @0 Uft CA-16mem Child Care Social Capital Continued.. . ?0]PGCdi1C X00 Gw k Below Moderate: 1,137 available licensed childcare spaces are meeting 40% of the need. 2010 Goal: Add an additional 300 spaces to meet 50% of the need. Currently, 1,669. children do not have access to licensed care. Catch Un: Need an additional 300 spaces Keen Un: 24 additional child care spaces will be required by 2010. Growth Imnact Every 16,578 sq ft of new residential development brings in a family with one more child without access to licensed child care. Every 8,857 sq ft of new commercial development, brings in a family with one more child without access to licensed child care. Assisted Living Poor: Currently doesn't exist. 2,710 residents ages 65 and older. No Assisted Living facilities in Eagle County. 2015 Goal: 45 bed facility to meet 22% of the need. 132 Assisted Living spaces needed. To keep up, 150 additional assisted living spaces by 2015. Keen Un: 47 additional child care spaces will be required by 2010. Every 16,578 sq ft of new residential develop brings in a family with one more child without access to licensed child care. Every 8,857 sq ft of new commercial development, brings in a family with one more child without access to licensed child care. 100% Keen Un: $249,984 additional by 2010 Catch Un: $3,124,800 to catch up 24% Catch-Up: $15,000,000.(45 residents @ 1,000 sq. R per resident @ $325 per sq. ft.). 100% Keep Up in 2015: 13 more residents in one year: $4,225,500. DRAFT % ct cum Five new child care facility proposals: Red Table Early Learning Center in Gypsum; Stratton Flats in Gypsum; Growing Years in Basalt; Red Canyon in Edwards; and Riverview in Eagle Vail Public-Private partnership. 10 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT sis Report Gap AIIaly . e Section Narrat" 11 • Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Communitv Seuarators Current Level of Service Using the present as a starting point the current level of service is adequate. Separation. between communities is provided by a combination of public lands, developed low density private ranches, and other undeveloped private lands. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan identified lands that could contribute to community separation along the Interstate corridor. There are areas along the I-70 corridor where development from one community has blended with or overlapped development from the adjacent community. In these areas, , opportunities for adequate separation has been lost. This Sustainability Report provides further refinement of the information in the FLUM, targeting . private properties that are either largely undeveloped or used for agricultural purposes located in between existing communities but outside recently defined urban growth boundaries Appendix B. The highlighted properties have also been evaluated against the County's open space criteria, and could potentially qualify for public open space funding. Goals One goal is to preserve the adeauacv of community separationibuffer that cu..,utly exist. "Adequacy" is somewhat subjective, and additional work is needed to better define the criteria. Depending on how it is defined, there are areas between communities where tasteful development could occur; with little loss to the level of service. In other areas, depending on the definition, local .communities could be on the brink of loosing adequate separation. Gap Removing development to correct existing deficiencies in community separation is not feasible; therefore, this report will conclude there is no present gap. Analysis has identified 3,288, acres of private property located outside municipal boundaries that currently contribute to community separation, mostly west of Edwards. Cost If the fee simple purchase of related properties by Government was the only mechanism by which to maintain the adequacy of future community separation, an estimated purchase price for the 3,288 acres in today's value would be over $96 million. While some purchases might be at,t,.„priate, the ownership and consequent long term maintenance of these lands by the government, would not be practicable. A better approach would be to preserve lands through the purchase of conservation easements or through providing incentives (or regulations) that promote the continued use of the land for agricultural or open space purposes. The popularity of hobby ranches among the wealthy could influence this outcome, but only if the lands remain available over the long term, for purchase by this demographic. Water rights would also need to be preserved for irrigation on these lands. • 12 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT The true "cost" of assuring this outcome would be the political will, potential risk, and work required to establish a shared vision with agreements and policies between all government entities to: 1) define the_ lands that should be targeted, and 2) limit and/or promote the types of development and land use that could occur. Methods to Close Gap • Preserve public lands in separation areas • Preserve existing open spaces; parks and river corridor • Encourage landscape enhancements to screen/diminish impacts of existing development in separation areas • Purchase conservation easements • Purchase lands in fee simple • Implement zoning overlays • Implement community growth and service boundaries • Implement IGA's with provisions that preserve community separation Mandate of Service There is no'legislative mandate for service: However, without this type of planning, development could become continuous, without a break along I-70 between East Vail and Dotsero, (excepting public lands which are subject to trade and areas where development would not be possible due to physical and topographic constraints). To the degree that public sentiment provides a mandate, recent surveys indicate that the citizens of Eagle County would not support a development pattern of a continuous, unbroken nature. Community separation contributes to the preservation of ecosystem integrity, the health of local wildlife populations,, the preservation of views, access to outdoor recreation, air quality, and water quality.- It also lends itself to the perception that historic rural character is being preserved. Modern practices in land. planning increasingly promote the benefits of community identity and place-making, which is strongly enhanced by physical separation between communities.. It also improves the efficiency and acceptability of transit service. Regional buses or trains can stop in each town center, where the majority of the people live, work, shop allowing for uninterrupted travel through the community buffers. 0 13 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT' • _ Parks Current Level of Service The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) suggests that a park system, at a minimum, be composed of 6.25 to 10.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000 people. The NRPA defines parkland as including play lots, neighborhood playgrounds and parks, community,playfields, major community parks, urban green space/open space, and recreation facilities. Parkland and recreation facilities in the County are operated by the towns, Vail Recreation District, Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation-District, Crown Mountain Recreation District and the school districts. The. parkland requirement has been set on the lower end of the recommendation scale of NRPA, specifically seven acres per 1,000 people, due to the large tracts of existing public lands in Eagle County. The incorporated and unincorporated sections of Eagle County have arr.„ximately 1,006 acres of existing parkland. With a 2008 population estimate of 54,427 people,- calculated at seven acres per person, Eagle County'should have 381 acres of parkland; therefore, we are above the recommended level of service by 625 acres. Goals In 2008, the goal is to have 381 acres of parkland. In 2010, the goal is to have 407 acres of parkland, based on a population of 58,196. In 2025, the goal is to have 570 acres of parkland based .on a population of 81,350. With no increase is parkland development, Eagle County is within the industry recommendation until 2025: However, the goal should be to maintain the same level of service that is currently being provided. Gap Eagle County does not have a deficit in developed parkland. However, the goal should be to maintain the same level of service that is currently being provided. Cost Eagle County would not need to develop and or acquire parkland on its own. At this time, Eagle County does not require the dedication of parkland for developments which'is allowed under Colorado State Statute. Under the Methods section, the ability to acquire parkland in the future is discussed. A future cost for parkland. is in the ongoing maintenance of any additional developed parkland. The different entities cu.jLr,utly managing parkland would need an increase in financial resources to take on any additional parkland in their districts.. Methods to Close Gap According to Colorado Statute, the County has the legal- right to ask for parkland dedication or a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The existing Land Use Regulations, governing the subdivision process, could be amended to require the dedication of parkland for all future developments. - Mandate of Service Currently there is no Eagle County mandate for parkland dedication. With the large amount of existing recreation opportunities in the community from public lands, the County has not required the dedication of parkland or fees, in lieu of parkland at anytime during the development process. 14 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT Environmental Management Svstem Level of Service/Baseline Information: In 2007, Eagle County consumed the following utility and fuel resources: Cost: Electricity: xxxxx $338,455 Natural Gas: xxxxx $214,035. Renewable Energy: 0 Water: x gallons $ xx,xxx. Gasoline: 119,461 gallons $329,179 Diesel: 370,098 gallons $1,017,369 Solid Waste: 115,489,tons $xxx,xxx Recycling: '10,789 tons $xx,xxx Average energy cost/square foot in an Eagle County facility: $1.88 Average pounds per person per day of trash: 12.0 The emissions created from these consumptions include: Xxxx tons C02, Xxx tons NOx, Xxx tons Sox Growth Impact New developmeni brings in additional resource consumption to meet the needs of a building's occupants. In an effort to meet reduction in overall energy and water consumption, new buildings must be designed to consume half of existing consumption rates. It is the goal of this report to incorporate community-wide indicators for these numbers. In the meantime, with the exception of solid waste and recycling indicators, EMS will focus on Eagle County fleet and facilities only. Future Goals • Electricity: 50% reduction/ft2, • Natural gas: 30% reduction/ft2 • Water: 50% reduction. . • Renewable Energy: Local renewable energy systems provide at least 50% of the remaining electricity needs of county facilities. • Renewable Energy: Biomass projects, geothermal, and/or solar thermal offset 50% of the remaining heating needs.. • Fuel: 506/o average miles per gallon increase of county fleet • Fuel: 30% of fuel is from alternative sources (CNG, biofuels, electricity, etc.) • Solid waste: 5 pounds per person per day or less (national average) • Recycling: 506/6 diversion rate Gap In most cases the goal is the area above the gap. However, in the case; of solid waste, the metric is 12 pounds per person, per day,' entering the landfill. A goal of 5 pounds per person, per day, which is the national average, would leave a gap of 7 pounds per person, per day, reduction needed. n U • U 15 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT Methods to close gap- Energy Performance Contracts: Aggressive retrofits and commissioning of existing buildings to meet use reduction targets. • Construct renewable energy systems to offset county-operated facility energy needs. • Install pellet boilers to additional facilities as is applicable. • Pursue biodiesel feasibility for fleet. • Xeriscape and efficient water systems/controls. • Higher tipping fees, pay-as-you-throw waste programs. • Require recycling/deconstruction for all construction projects (50% of the landfill waste.is construction/demolition waste. Implement state-of-the-art recycling programs. While Eagle County cannot mandate recycling, there are carrot/stick approaches to encourage it, including town partnerships. Costs • Energy Performance Contracts: Cost normally can be financed into the scope of work/contract. timeline to yield positive annual cash flow. • General cost for solar PV systems: $8000 per kilowatt. To meet the goal of 50% electricity being generated by local systems, an estimated 3000 kilowatts'(or 3 MegaWatts (MW)) would need to be installed, for an estimated straight cost of $2,400,000. However, since tax credits (which make such projects more economically feasible) are only available to private companies, it is recommended that future projects be constructed on a Power Purchase Agreement basis; in which costs are lumped into existing utility costs. • Install pellet boilers/furnaces: The cost for the system at the landfill was $85,000. Installing four'similar systems at other county facilities, would total $340,000. ,Tle'systems would yield " cost savings over natural gas; such paybacks will depend on the relative cost of pellets vs. , ' natural gas in the future. Biodiesel: Biodiesel doesn't cost more than conventional diesel, in fact it can be less expensive. No (vehicle/engine retrofits are required. A B30 mix (30% biodiesel, 70% petroleum diesel) is' recommended for fleet use. B30 has been used by Vail Resorts and Aspen Ski Company for years in their snow cat fleet. • Xeriscape and efficient water systems/controls • Higher tipping fees = positive cash flow, funds can be used toward further waste reduction (MRF, composting, PR, etc.) • Require recycling/deconstruction for all construction projects: no cost, enforcement through existing inspections. • Fleet 50% miles per gallon increase: Evaluate initial purchase price of vehicles by combining life cycle fuel consumption costs, based on average vehicle ownership time. Significant additional costs would not be expected; it is anticipated that, this would save money as the Prius fleet has demonstrated. • Fleet 30% of fuel from alternative sources: Replace vehicles as necessary with alternative or flex-fuel vehicles such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, etc. Not anticipated to represent a significant cost. • • Wind: 260,400 kWh wind credits offset 100% electrical usage. Cost: $78;120. 16 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • i xANSPORTATION Road Infrastructure Level of Service Countv Roads: Moderate, pavement surfaces are generally in good condition; several locations have exceeded or will exceed. its design capacity in the near future. State Roads: Poor to Moderate; pavement surfaces are generally in fair condition; several location have exceeded or will exceed its design capacity in the near future. Growth Impact New devel,;r?ijLent increases the number of new residents, which impacts road capacity and maintenance requirements. Gap $450M of identified road'improvements needed in the next 20 years. Goal Maintain Level of Service C&D for roadways and Intersections Cost $450M of identified road improvements needed in the next 20 years. Methodology to Close Gap HUFT funding, CDOT funding/grants; Impact Fees, Improvement Districts, County General Fund Mandated Service, Provide. Safe Roads for community Mass Transit Level of Service Cua.raat regional service is good; Local system is poor. Growth Impact New development, increases the number of new residents, which impacts service capacity. Gap Cu..,..t funding lacks sufficient capital improvement. Town of.Eagle/Gypsum and Edwards need a local feeder -system. Future Goal Maintain a good LOS and provide Local feeder System Cost: General Assumptions about costs are listed in Figure 2. • r • 17 Sustainable Communities 2010 General Assumptions: - Figure 2 2008 estimated population = 50,000 - Buildout = 2020 estimated population = 75,000 (DOLA - 74,038 (estimate 84% as Eagle Valley = 62,191.92,16% as RFV =11,846) Buildout = 2020 population = 75,000 (DOLA - 74,038 (estimate 84% as Eagle Valley = 62,191.92,160/6 as RFV =11,846) $$ recrumpment by $2020 - All $ in current 2008 dollars - Subtracted revenue (cts) from line items (revenue will keep up with Maintence/current LOS) 1.17p/1000 SF of Residential 2.17p/1000SF Comercial - assume 50% ratio - 1.67p/1000SF Fund _ Road & Brldge Fund (100) Off-slte Road_Improvement Fund (140) Eagle Valley Transpo. ?.;:... Fund (151) E. V. Transportation Vehicle Replacement Fund Road In: ,:.:.: iciure assumptions: County. Roads Growth accounts for 1/3 of Buildout population 2008 Cost to Serve per . f . , ? .`cures ooo/Annually $9,010,026 $110.36 $650,000 $7.96 $8,306,094 $10134 $1,149,511 $14.08 State Roads DRAFT 2008 Cost to Serve per in- Commute/Annualhr $11.04 $0.80 $10.17 $1.41 CIP needs = $37,852,845 - $1Mtyear = 20 year total $20M - $17,852,845 Assume STIP support = $100M - CIP needs = $450,50.4,802 - CIP need Final need = $350,504,802 1/1 CIP needs = $5,950353.23 - $238.01/capita 1/3 CIP needs = $116,823,250.07 - $4,672.931capita Mass transit assumptions: Regional Transit Sale Tax revenue: $611111annually Fare revenue: $1.7AAlannually' Local Transit Current Cost to serve = $116/capitaryear local feeder system - $200k per community - $600,000/25,000 20% increase in, service = $140, w;, _year $24/capitatyear =12 years = $288/pp gap = $25/capka/year - Buildout = $25'$75,000 = $1,875,000 gap paid by growth = $1,875,000/25,000pop $75/capita/annual' 12 years= $9001pp growth Pe ::,.n Trial assumptions: Core Trail, known as Eagle Valley Trail, is 63 miles long. 33 miles are constructed. 30 miles remain to be constructed. Estimated Trails tax revenues through 2020 are $9,000,000 - 30 mile cost is estimated at $26 million in 2008. - Funding shortfall is $15,000,000 -,gap paid by growth $15,000,000/25,000p = $600/capita 2035 vision: full connection up all tributary valleys and Colorado River Road, connection to Tennesee Pass. 70 additional miles = $60,000,000 in 2008 dollars. Apply same formula to RF Trails, but with reduced trail mileage per smaller population and lands under EC jurisdiction. Methodology: Sale Tax, CDOT funding/grants, Impact Fees, Improvement Districts, County General Fund Mandated Service: Mass transit is not a mandate. Bike and Pedestrian Trails Level of Service: Fair; 3 of 6 community connections completed Growth Impact : New development increases the number of residents, impacting service capacity. Gap: Three communities do not have trail connections Goal: Complete full connection to all Eagle Valley Communities by 2020. Planned core trail is 63 miles long, 33 constructed, 30 miles remains to be constructed. Cost: $600/capita • Methods to Close Gap: Sales Tax, CDOT funding/grants, Impact Fees, Improvement Districts, County General Fund Mandated Service: Mass bike/pedestrian trail is not a mandate, but it is a highly sought-after amenity for top-rated resort communities. 18 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT- HOUSING. Workforce and Senior Housing Overview Eagle County faces a substantial County-wide gap in the availability of ownership and rental housing that is affordable for local residents, both active workers and retired. seniors. High housing payments burden-households, and employees are forced'to commute long distances. Overcrowding is common. Jobs remain unfilled, negatively impacting business operations, and the vast majority of employers believe that the availability of workforce housing is a critical or major problem in Eagle County. As detailed more fully in Eagle County's 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, the current state of Eagle County's housing need is as follows: • Approximately 5,300 Households live in homes that are not affordable given their incomes, making it difficult for those Households to pay for other necessities, like food, utilities, transportation, and health care; • Housing prices are continuing to rise faster than incomes, indicating that housing is becoming progressively less affordable for local wage earners; • Commuting into Eagle County is on the increase-over 18 percent of employees commute in from homes outside of Eagle County to jobs within Eagle County; • The relationship between primary and vacation homes is changing, and local wage-earning residents are unable to compete with buyers from outside of Eagle County. The proportion of homes in unincorporated Eagle County occupied by County residents declined from 69 percent in 2000 to, 66.5 percent as of 2006. Local residents currently. occupy at least 52 percent of the total square footage of the housing stock in Eagle County, but that percentage is declining. This has implications on the demand for and availability of workforce housing. • As of the 2000 Census, approximately 69 percent of all housing units in Eagle County were occupied by residents and 31 percent were vacant, primarily because of seasonal and recreational use. The Department of Local Affairs estimates that the occupancy rate in 2006 was about 64. percent, indicating a decline of 7 percent in the r..,yortion of units that actually serve as housing. • Based on residential sales in 2007, the primary-to-secondary home occupancy ratio has continued to decline from, 2000 to 2006. In 2007, locals purchased 52 percent of all units sold. Of these, 54 units were deed restricted. Locals purchased only 49 percent of free- market units. • 3,400 housing units are needed to address current deficiencies that the free market has not and is not expected to address; and • Over 8,000 additional units will be needed to keep up with the demand for. workforce housing by the year 2015. Homes that are not occupied, but rather function as vacation accommodations, generate demand for workforce housing through their requirements. for upkeep and maintenance. Moreover, a shift from 'primary to secondary. residences degrades the local character of a mountain community. As Eagle 19 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT County's housing imbalance increases, availability of housing for QmytoYees becomes even more limited, and the fabric of the entire community is threatened. Despite the documented demand for workforce housing, private developers have little incentive to provide housing for Households with incomes less than 140 percent of the Area Median Income (hereinafter "AMP) because responding to demand for high-end homes is more profitable. With the quality of life, natural beauty, and abundance of recreation opportunities in Eagle County, de' ma nd for housing, by purchasers of vacation homes will continue to drive prices upward and dominate the market absent a major recession or revision of federal tax policy. Level of Service Catch-Up Needs, based'on current deficiencies in housing, are as follows: • 1,420 additional housing units are needed to attract employees to fill the over 4,000 jobs that are now vacant. • Employees who commute in,from homes in neighboring counties for jobs in Eagle County and would like to move to be closer to work generate demand for 2,469 additional housing units. • Arr,uximately 557 housing units are needed to address overcrowding of homes in Eagle ' County. As of April 2008, roughly 1,050 residential units were listed for.sale in Eagle County. These- free:market units narrow the cu..,..A catch-up gap to approximately 3,400 units, a number which is close to previous estimates for workforce housing recently derived by the Eagle. County Housing Department and the Urban Land Institute Keep-Up Needs, defined as the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for housing based on projected employment and population growth and the requirement to replace retiring employees, include: • 4,776 additional units to accommodate growth in the labor force through in-migration to sustain business expansion and start ups, and • 3,284 units for employees are needed to fill positions that will be vacated by retiring workers. Managing the Housing Effect of Growth The purpose of the Eagle County Local-Resident Housing Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), is to implement specific strategies of the Comprehensive Plan calling for private development to share in the responsibility for keeping up with the demand for workforce housing in the future as part of all new residential and commercial growth. . The Guidelines are intended to promote sustainable communities in Eagle County through the creation of affordable, permanent-resident housing stock. They call for the provision of workforce housing for Households earning the equivalent of 140 percent AMI or lower-households that have 20 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT . little or no opportunity to purchase free-market housing without significant subsidy. They also provide options for provnding housing priced for local residents with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI since free-market housing, opportunities for these Households are also limited in terms of unit type and location. They complement other County programs, noted above, to address the economic spectrum of Households in Eagle County that cannot afford housing. The Guidelines are part of Eagle County's broader solution of making housing available for and affordable to Eagle County's growing workforce. All devel.,r...ent in unincorporated Eagle County must adhere to the Guidelines. Gap There is a significant gap between the current demand for units (catch-up) and the number of homes available as of April, 2007.: The difference of 3,398 units between current demand for 4,446 units and 1,048 current listings represents the magnitude of the gap between what,residents and in- commuting employees want for housing and what the free market is providing. The diffQ.,..ice for each AMI category represents the net demand between what residents and_ in-commuters can afford and the free market price of units. The gap is largest in the 81 to 120 percent AMI range ($53,850 - $73,000 for a 3-person household). Since federal and state housing programs only serve households with incomes equal to or less than 80 percent AMI (Low Income Housing Tax Credits and several grant programs have even lower income eligibility standards) addressing the gap in the 81 to, 120 percent AMI range will require partnering with private developers and other local solutions that do not rely on funding from outside of Eagle County. Proportionately, the free market best serves households with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI; units available as of April could potentially meet approximately 64 percent of catch-up demand in the upper income category.. These figures are dynamic; additional units will be placed on the market during 2007 that will slightly lower the gap. With 97 percent of the current, listings affordable only for households with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI, the change should not significantly impact planning for solutions to address catch-up demand. Net Demand for Housing: illustrated in Figures 3 & 4 • 21 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT Keep and Catch-Up Demand Summarized: Figure 3 HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS T Uhits t .. } Soyrce of Demand Needed _ Catch-up Needs... . Unfilled A: b ,. 2007 - In Commuters'- .. .-i., . . L'146 - OvrydedUnits: 557 _ , . Total Catch Up Demand; 4446_ = Keel-Up, Needs _ 4 _76 Replacement of Refi_ reel, 2007;= 20;15; 3,284 Kee "Up;Deiriaud 8,060 _Total?Demand:for:Additional i7nits_tiy201'--_. :12,506 ib Further Breakdown of Keep Up Demand: Figure 4 HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS N.et D?em -f-b - I-QU& g . ., .. 401 . #.Curr`ent 'a . . AMI Range .: .. ; ;Max Price ' Listings MLS. '. 500/cAAG or less $124,796- 2 : 242 =240 60%AMI, $148;123, .0 327,:: ; 327 80%AMI.'' . 384 -384. lOQ%`A1VII $241;432 4 . _: .:- t683_ .?_ =679 r ,1'20%o`.AM- l' $288,086. - - . ,. -4, 678 :. _ =674:. =- _ 140$33.'4;74.1;'. 18 545" - -527 `Over1'40%AMI'':Ovet:$334741' 4; =568 " . TotaF:..-_. 71 "z 1;04:$: _ 41,446 `- Soiiree: Eagle Coon MLS RRC%Itees Cal'culations.` • 22 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT Future Goal: Keen Un: Compliance with the Eagle County Housing Guidelines for new. development: (1) Inclusionary Housing for Residential Developments. In order to slow the shift from primary to secondary home ownership, Eagle County has set its base rate for Local Resident Housing at 35 percent of the total square footage of a project, a figure substantially below the 52 percent of the residential square footage in Eagle County that is currently occupied by local residents. As such, all new Residential Development, except un-subdivided 35-acre parcels, must include the following: (A) Affordable Housing equal to 35 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development; or (B) Affordable Housing equal to 30 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development and Resident-Occupied Housing equal to 10 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development. or (C) Affordable Housing equal to 30 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development and voluntary adoption of a 1.5 'percent transfer assessment placed on the second and all subsequent sales of all market-rate units (excluding units resold to Eligible Households). or (D) Affordable Housing equal to 25 percent of total,Net Square Footage of the Residential Devel.;r...ent and voluntary adoption of a 1.5 percent transfer assessment placed on the second and all subsequent sales of all market-rate units (excluding units resold to Eligible Households) and Resident-Occupied Housing equal to 10 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development. (2) Affordable Employee Housing Required for Commercial Mitigation. All new Commercial Development that, by hiring new employees, creates the need for one or more additional housing units must mitigate the impact of such development on Eagle County housing stock by providing Affordable Housing for up to. 100 percent of the housing demand generated by Households with incomes less than 140 percent AMI, accounting for current in-commuting rates (for an overall mitigation rate for the housing demand created by all new jobs of 55 percent). If 20 percent of Net Square Footage of the new Commercial Development is Affordable Commercial Space the mitigation rate will be reduced by 10 percentage points to 45 percent. (3) For mixed-use projects, only the higher of the (1).(Inclusionary Housing). or (2) (Affordable Employee Housing) requirements apply at the lowest applicable AMI-affordability levels. (4) Either Affordable Rental Housing or Affordable For-Sale Housing may be constructed to comply with the Inclusionary Housing or'the Commercial Employee Housing Mitigation component of the Guidelines. • (5) While on-site construction of Local-Resident Housing is preferred, it may be built off site under conditions enumerated herein. 23 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT The Guidelines apply to all applicants for Development Permits, including all governmental and non-profit entities; in unincorporated Eagle County. The Guidelines do not apply to development within the municipalities of Vail, -Avon, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle, Gypsum, or Basalt. Compliance with the Guidelines represents one of several relevant elements in a land use application as detailed in Eagle County's Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan:, Complying with the Guidelines, however, does not assure an applicant that a Development Permit will be approved. Catch Ub: Construction of 3500 workforce and senior units throughout Eagle County. Cost: Keen Un: No cost to Eagle County. Catch Un: No net cost to Eagle "County (using existing resources, including existing capital with a projected 6% IRR). • • 24 Sustainable Communities 2090 SOCIAL CAPITAL Access to Health Care DRAFT Overview In Eagle County, 26% of residents (14,500 individuals) cannot afford medical care because they are uninsured. This is nearly 1 in 4 residents. Level of Service: Moderate Eagle County, Eagle Care Clinic, and a few area physicians offer primary care, based on the ability to pay, but are still only meeting 46% of the need (Figure 5). Figure 5 CURRENT STATUS - ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE irsuree F.4ecral Girt Uninsured Ib Coverage Jnmsu,cd Cove•ed by ?moo r F? .etc Growth New development increases the number of new residents, which impacts service capacity. For example, every 3,300 sq ft of new residential development in Eagle County and every 1,757 sq ft of new commercial development bring in one new uninsured resident that needs medical services. Gap The medical needs of and preventive services for nearly 7,700 residents are currently going unmet except for their access to the hospital emergency room. By 2010, Eagle County will have 979 more uninsured residents. Future Goal To offer primary care services to 80% of uninsured residents by the year 2010 (Figure 6). • C 25 Sustainable Communities 2010 0 Figure 6 GOAL - ACCESS to HEALTH CARE k`55,f cc M'Ec:K-al Cary U';neurvc7 rw Cuv•:rr,ar- L?r,rs un:;d - C.3v r•r,.?J acv •='P''Vjte DRAFT Cost: The total 2010 annual operating cost to serve 80% of the uninsured population is $7,200,000, of which only $3,700,000 is new funds. These new funds equal a per capita cost of $68 annually (Figure 7) Figure 7 COSTS to CLOSE the GAP 8COCIOCO - 140 c °- 7CO+'-OCQ rv - 120 e 60000CO CL 100 d 50000(}0 .. •n 0 4000000- • 60 Q. 30.00000 - . o N 40 200000 0 v Method to Close Gap: Using a Community Health Center (CHC) model, the county can apply for state and federal designations that would help us obtain government grants. The key for sustaining a CHC is to have multiple payer sources including grants, client fees, Medicaid/Medicare, taxes and private donations. 26 Curt Goal Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT SOCIAL CAPITAL Access to Dental Care Level of Service: Poor In Eagle County, 48 percent of residents (26,125) do not have adequate dental insurance. The only indigent dental care available in county is a mobile dental van, which serves 180 low income children ages 5-18. On average, nearly 1,000 procedures are performed on these kids, over 234 visits. In addition, only 50 percent of water systems within Eagle County are fluoridated. Fluoride is a natural cavity fighter that helps delay the onset 'and progression of tooth decay. The absence of fluoride makes access to dental services even more'critical. Growth Impact New deveh,.V .gent increases the number of new residents, which impacts service capacity. For example, Every 1,988 square feet of new residential development, and every 1,062 square feet of new commercial development brings in one new resident lacking access to dental care. Gap The dental needs, including preventive services for nearly 25,945 residents are, going unmet. By 2010, Eagle County will have 1,809 more residents without adequate dental insurance. Future Goal To start an indigent care dental clinic and serve 1,367 residents, meeting 6% of the need, by the year 2010. Cost The 2010 start up and operating costs will require $383,935 in new funds. Methodology Using a Community Health Center (CHC) model, the County.can apply for state and fedeial designations that would help us obtain government grants. Additionally, clients can be charged on a sliding fee scale, in addition to government payer sources of $45 per CHP+ client and $65 per Medicaid client visit. Patient fees should generate 1/3 of the revenue. Other revenue sources will need to include public and private donations. Mandated Service Dental care is not a mandated service. • • J 27 Sustainable Communities 2010 • SOCIAL CAPITAL Access to Child Care Level of Service: Below Moderate DRAFT In Eagle County, there are over 5000 children ages 5 and younger and 56% of them (2,806) require child care However, only 1,137 licensed childcare spaces currently exist, leaving 33% of Eagle County children without access to a licensed childcare facility (Figure 1). Don't Need Care ¦ Need Licensed Care and Have It ? Need Licensed Care and Don't Have It Growth Impact Every 16,578 sq ft of new residential development and every 8,857 sq ft of new commercial development brings in a family with one more child without access to licensed child care. Gap In 2008, there are 1,137 children without access to licensed care. By 2010, this number will increase to 1,1.84. Future Goal To help community partners develop five new licensed child care facilities, with an additional 300 spaces by 2010. This will meet 50%. Cost Annual operating costs alone will require $3,124,800 in new funds. Methods to Close the Gap Currently, five new child care facility proposals are being developed: Red Table Early Learning Center and Stratton Flats in Gypsum; Growing Years in Basalt; Red Canyon in Edwards; and Riverview in Eagle Vail. However, there is a worker shortage in existing child care facilities, and it is estimated that a minimum of 63 more staff will be required for these five new facilities. This type of worker demand could increase the costs. Mandated Service Child care is not a statutorily mandated service. 28 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT _ SOCIAL CAPITAL Assisted Living Level' of Service: Poor - Currently doesn't exist In F-gle County, there are 21710 residents ages 65 and older, and no assisted living facilities. According to national figures, 5% of seniors in this age group are at risk of needing assisted living annually. Growth To keep up after 2015 would require planning for an addition 13 residents annually. Gap' According to national, figures, 5% of seniors, ages 65 and,older, are at risk of needing assisted living annually. Future Goal To establish a 45 bed assisted living facility by 2015. Cost $15,000,000, which equates to 45 residents @1000 sq. ft. per resident@ $325 per sq. ft. Methods to Close Gap Use a public-private partnership to purchase land, develop and run facility. Mandated Service Assisted Living is not a mandated service. 29 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT Section III: Public Policy Formulation Tools * Fiscal Impact Tool * Communication/Collaboration Tools • Build Out Analysis • Mayor-Manager Collaborative Mapping • Intergovernmental Agreements. • Transportation Collaborative Example *Statement of 'Commercial/Residential Activities 30 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT _ FISCAL IMPACT TOOL Site Stats SiteStatsTM is a tool developed by Development Research Partners and available through the Economic Council of Eagle County. SiteStatsTM is used for evaluating the economic and fiscal impacts associated with new, expanding and existing development. Economic impact analysis is the analytical approach used to assess the measurable direct and indirect, public and private costs and benefits resulting from a project or policy over a specific time period. Only those costs and benefits that can be measured or quantified are included. Intangible costs and benefits, such as enhancement of community character or diversification of the job base, are not included. Fiscal-impact analysis is a narrower concept that measures only the direct, public (governmental) costs and public revenues associated with a project over a specific time period such as sales and use tax, property tax, franchise fees, licenses and permits, and other charges for services. In other words, economic impacts measure the effect of spending of businesses, employees and residents on other businesses whereas fiscal impacts measure the effect of this spending on the local government(s) budget. SiteStatsTM enables (1) cost-benefit analysis for a specific project and (2) comparison between multiple projects. Analytical results can be used to evaluate a project's ability to meet various economic and financial criteria established by public policy. Analytical results will contribute to the decision making process, but in no case should the resulting analysis be construed as establishing public policy, or economic criteria. SiteStatsTM is but one of several inputs that should be considered in the decision process. • 31 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT COIVIM_UNICATION and COLLABORATION TOOLS Build-Out Analysis Fvkgle County is currently updating the 2006 Build Out Analysis with the assistance of TerraCognito GIS Services., Work program activities for the update to the 2008 Build Out Analysis and Visioning Exercise include the following projects: • Phase 1: Theoretical build out of existing zoning, • Phase 2: Practical build out of existing zoning, • Phase 3: Practical build out of master plans and potential zoning, • Phase 4: 3D visualization of build out analyses. Phase 1: The existing zoning designations for each jurisdiction will be analyzed using the CommunityViz Build Out Wizard, resulting in geographically distributed points representing future dwelling units. This build out analysis will represent the maximum residential development ` allowed by underlying zoning, known as theoretical build out. Projected population growth rates as well as anticipated development phasing for each jurisdiction will be applied to the build out results, generating residential growth allocations for a given future time interval. This is referred to as TimeScope analysis, and will enable us to see a snapshot of development at the year 2025. Phase 2 While theoretical build out is how each jurisdiction could develop in a landscape without practical devel„r...ent constraints, practical build out is a more realistic depiction of future development. It accounts for the effects of development constraints. that tend to impede parcels from being developed to their full zoning potential. The results from Phase 1 will be adjusted to more accurately represent.growth.patterns at 2025, based on input fi.,... the planners in each jurisdiction. All other assumptions from,Phase 1 will remain unchanged (i.e. growth rates, devel.,Y...ent phasing and non-negotiable constraints). Phase 3: Practical :build out analysis only illustrates development patterns if the existing zoning never changes. Therefore, a more useful tool is the exercise of analyzing the build out potential of future zoning or master plans. In Phase 3, the master plan land use designations and future land use maps for each jurisdiction will be analyzed using the CommunityViz Build Out Wizard, resulting in geographically distributed points .Ql,.,,senting additional future dwelling units. Phase 4: The results of the spatial build out analyses in the previous three phases will be rendered in three dimensions and placed on a digital u,.., :n model to show how each build out scenario will look on the landscape at the year 2025. The intent of these landscape visualizations is to provide a bird's eye view of potential future development patterns. The models ..,v.esenting residential buildings will accurately depict overall massing (dwelling units, footprint, height and form) but will not represent any particular details in terms of architecture, color or texture. Existing buildings will also be rendered based on the availability and completeness of building footprint data and building heights. ,It is anticipated that the Build Out Analysis and Visioning exercise will be completed by October 2008. 32 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT COMMUNICATION and COLLABORATION TOOLS: Mayor-Manager Collaborative Mapping As a result of discussions at a Mayors/Managers meeting in April 2008, it was decided that a set of joint county and town maps would be generated depicting a number of attributes associated with common goals for Eagle County and the towns. The maps show:, • The first and second priorities for transportation improvements in each municipality. Specifically, each municipality showed on the. map the location of where the two most critical transportation elements/issues they are facing and briefly describe the issues. • Opportunities for affordable housing within each municipality. Specifically, each municipality identified the location of where affordable housing should be located within each town and indicated their estimate of potential units.. . • Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD's) within each municipality. Specifically, each municipality gave the location where anticipated potential transit stations and/or Transit Oriented Devel.,yu.ent could occur. The jurisdictions were reminded that an affordable housing component may be incorporated into the TOD. • Open space parcels in or around each municipal ity that are of particular importance. Specifically, each municipality provided the location of key open space parcels in each town (or in close proximity) that are of significant importance. • Extent of the urban growth boundary and/or urban service area for each municipality. Specifically, each municipality assigned the location of the designated urban growth boundary and/or the, urban service area. The Eagle County GIS Department consolidated the information for distribution and discussion. These maps are a conduit for continued discussion. and collaboration between the towns and Eagle County as we look for ways to plan together the Eagle valley and Roaring Fork valley portions in Eagle County. E 33 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT COMM_UNICATION:and COLLABORATION TOOLS: % Inter-Governmental Agreements The Town of Basalt and Eagle County have been negotiating an Intergovernmental A,.Q,,...ent (IGA) to improve relations over competing interests of developers in the,two jurisdictions: Future development could result in substantial impacts, both positive and negative, within the County and the Town. The necessity exists for coordinated and cooperative planning and decision making with respect to such development between the County and the Town as well as the establishment of evaluation, design and mitigation standards for both direct and indirect on-site and off-site impacts with any future development. The IGA specifically addresses the following items: • To further the goals and intentions of the 2007 Basalt Master Plan, as amended; o To further the policies and recommendations of the 2005 Eagle County. Comprehensive Plan and Area Plans, as amended; • To assure that urban scale development is appropriate and consistent with sound land planning and development principles pending the update of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan; • To preserve and protect sensitive areas and natural resources; including but not limited to natural wildlife habitat, cultural resources, open space, air quality, water resources, night sky preservation, view corridors, and noise mitigation; • . To maintain the natural beauty of the area to the extent possible consistent with the rights of property owners and the needs of the Town and County'and their citizens; • . To facilitate and ensure fiscal planning for the adequate provision of essential governmental services consistent and compatible with land use and development decisions; • To strongly encourage and, where appropriate, require specific assurances of adequate provisions for water, sewerage, drainage, air quality, open space, roads, parking' transportation, public services, public facilities, and affordable housing; • To V,,%,lect the environment and quality of life through appropriate controls and standards designed to provide adequate open space; to avoid unserviceable concentrations of populations; to avoid congestion on roadways; to provide for clean. air; to protect water quality and eliminate stream pollution and excess sedimentation; and to prevent erosion and devel.,r...ent on any unstable slopes; • To preserve, promote and Fi v,ect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of and visitors to the Town and County. • To facilitate cooperation between the Town and County for all long range planning and community plans. The IGA will become a template for future IGA's with the other municipalities in Fngle County to promote regional planning efforts. • 34 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT. _ -Transportation Collaborative The Transportation Collaborative is a forward thinking group of valley wide representatives from the County, the Towns and special interest groups that are working together to identify current and future transportation issues as well as propose and implement solutions. By enhancing the dialogue, we can work together locally to be better prepared when responding to the Federal and State authorities on transportation issues. The discussion to date has included. • Transportation implications of existing and future land use' approvals. • Transportation improvements that need to be accomplished in, order to maintain an "adequate" level of service for our residents and visitors. • Ramifications and relationships to the overall transportation system relative to public transit, bus systems, potential rail systems, airport expansion, etc. • Determine, where the money comes fi?.. to address the transportation system deficiencies. • Determine who the players are and what partnerships should be formed. • Determine financing options. • . Determine timing. Programs and projects the Collaborative has achieved or is.currently working towards outcomes include: • • Review of existing transportation reports, plans and data to determine the cur.c,Y.t-level of service and "existing deficiencies. • Completion of the Eagle/Gypsum/Eagle County financial analysis for transportation improvements"in the down valley region. • Investigation and discussion of transportation infrastructure financing, opportunities. • Assisting the I-70 Coalition regarding a study of land use patterns and, potential transit station locations along the I-70 corridor. The Transportation Collaborative is an excellent example of communication and collaboration among the community leaders working in unison to identify transportation issues and find solutions, E 35 Sustainable Communities 2010 i DRAFT Resources Statement of Commercial/Residential Activities Cost to Serve Data Resources: Population Figures • 36 r I Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT. Statement of Commercial/Residential Activities The Statement of Commercial/Residential Activities is an estimate of the revenue generated by type of construction. Commercial devel-v...ents generate all sales taxes and have a higher assessment value. However, due to the volume of residential deveh j ...ents, they bring in a larger share of the property taxes. Other revenue has been allocated to commercial and residential developments based on estimates, and discussions with Finance and Treasury personnel as well as personnel from the Assessor's Office. Based on these estimates,. a little over two thirds of all revenue generated by the County is from residential development. The remaining one third is generated from the construction and continued success of commercial development and businesses. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES Revenues Sales Taxes PropertyTaxes Specific Ownership Fees Licenses, fees and permits Internal Service Charges Federal, State, Local Aid Investment earnings Miscellaneous Total revenues Commercial Residential Total 20,387,044 0 20,387,044 6,067,522 20,494,002 26,561,524 203,110 865,890 1,069,000 4,943,613 14,830,838 19,774,450 2,511,570 10,707,219 13,218,789 826,526 15,703,994 16, 53 0,520 563,289 2,401,390 2,964,679 629,884 2,685,295 3,315,179 36.132.557 67.688.628 103.821.185 11 • • 37 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT • _ Cost to Serve Cost to Serve Definition and Calculation The costs to serve by department and fund as shown is an estimate of the costs of any development on a per capita basis. A wide.51,.,ad theory of development is that commercial properties pay for themselves. This theory is based on the sales and property taxes that are generated from commercial developments. However, this theory-is a metropolitan area theory that assumes that additional -employee.needs such as health care and affordable housing are already available. In addition, the theory does not anticipate tax increment fmancing impacts that reduce the revenue that would otherwise offset the costs to serve the impacts of the new deveL.F ... ent. In order to calculate the cost to serve determinations, the following steps were taken: 1) Went back 5 years and forward 20 years to determine dependencies. in revenue and expenditures for every department and every fund. 2) Analyzed those dependencies and determined the c-.-.:lations in dollar terms. 3) Re-calculated costs based on. correlations and projected revenues over the next 20 years. 4) Divided the additional expenditures, net of additional actual and/or projected revenues, by the increases in population (also actual or projected). i S) Also determined the net impact of those that commute into the County to work. . The result is a per person cost to serve, net of fee revenue, that will'be required in the future for all - developments. The cost to serve is for unincorporated Eagle County. However, areas within each, jurisdiction may have some of these County costs plus additional jurisdictional costs. This estimate of the cost to serve should be used as a guide for any new developments. Based on this analysis; consideration should be given to require a new devei I ..ent within the County to prove that it can generate enough revenue to cover the cost to serve-the impacts. Those impacts would include S 1,242 for any new resident or resident employees and $124 for any commuting employees, created by the development. Since this analysis does not include any. affordable, housing costs that may also be required in Eagle County, those costs should also be considered in addition to those shown in this analysis. • L? 38 Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT . Cost to Serve per Person by Budget Fund. 2008 2008 Cost to Cost to Fund General Fund (001). Road & Bridge Fund (100) Early Childhood Fund (109) Social Services Fund (110) _ WRAP Fund (111) Retirement Fund (120) Insurance Reserve Fund (130) Off-site Road Improvement Fund (140) Capital Improvements Fund (150) "Eagle Valley Transportation Fund (1"51) Eagle Valley Trails Fund (152) R. F. V. Transpiration Fund (153) R. F. V. Trails Fund (154) E. V. Transportation Vehicle Replacement Fund (155) Airport Fund (160) Conservation Trust Fund (170) Microwave Maintenance Fund (180) Contingent Fund (190) Emergency Reserves Fund _(19.1) G. O. (Admin. Building) Debt Ser: Fund (200) Joint Maintenance Debt Ser. Fund (201) Capital Expenditure Fund (300) Affordable Housing Fund (310) Construction Fund (350) Housing Fund (400) Hazardous Materials Fund (441) Open Space Fund (442) Landfill Fund (600) Motor Pool Fund (700) Health Insurance Fund (790) E911 Fund (900) TOTAL EXPENSES Eipenditures $36849207 $9010026 $1451165 $3123193 $13000 $0 $215838 $650000 $6208300 $8306094 $545622 $395095 $43896 $1149511 $9459252' . $0 $569595 $0 $0 $0 $1258088 $0, $0 $0 $452340 $58942 $1439063 $4194506 $7631008 $7488172 $889005 Serve Serve(per (per Pop) In-Commute) Annually Annually $451.36 $110.36 $17.78 $38.26 $0.16 $0.00 $2.64 $7.96 $76.04 $101,.74 $6.68 $4.84 $0.54 $45.14 $11.04 $1.78 $3.83 $0.02 $0.00 $0.26 $0.80 $7.60 $10.17 $0.67 $0.48 $0.05 $14.08 $115.86 $0.00 $6.98 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.54 $0.72 $17.63 $51.38 $93.47 $91:72 $10.89 $101400918 - $124204 $1.41 $11.59 $0.00 $0.70 $0.00. $0.00 $0.00 $1.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.55 $0.07 $1.76 $5.14 $9.35. .$9.17 $1.09 $124.20 0 • • 39 • l • Sustainable Communities 2010 Cost to Serve per. Person - General Fund 2008 2008 Cost to''' Cost to Serve Serve (per (per Pop) . In-Commute) _ General Fund (001) Annually Annually Assessor $21.05 $2.10 Total Clerk & Recorder $22.09 $2.21 Total Board of County Commissioners $13.61 $1.36 Total Treasurer $17.68 $1.77 County Surveyor $0.23 -$0.02 County Attorney (operations) $12.61 $1.26 Total Administration $13.84 $1.38 GIS $2.69 $0.27 Total Finance -$3.69 -$037 Total Human Resources $11.61 $1.16 Facilities Management, $37.90 $3.79 Information Technology $30.1'1 $3.01 Planning & Zoning (community develup...ent) $17.21 $1.72 Housing $10.07 $1:01 Total Sheriff $125.83 $12.58 Emergency Management $1.82 $0.18 County Coroner $1.69 $0.17 Weed & Pest Control $2.23 $0.22 Animal Services $8.28 $0.83 Building Inspection $13.14 $131 Total Public Works $12.86 $1.29 Total Health & Human Services $44.24 $4.42 Environmental Health $6:84 $0.68 Total. Culture & Recreation $4.99 $0:50 Total Intergovernmental Support $22.46 $2.25 Total General Fund $451.36 $45.14 40 DRAFT Sustainable Communities 2010 -RESOURCES: Eagle'County Population Projections Used in Matrices *Colorado Department of Local Affairs Estimates 110,000 81,350 82.500 66.453 55.004 45°380 - 27,500' • 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 • 41 1 DRAFT 210 le Communities Sustainab Appena? manager Naps a county Mayor- '[Own an • 42 ?- Town of - Basalt l l Transportation Transit Oriented _ I J Parcel Boundary Improvements Development I Mixed Use: T.O.D. 8 Town Boundary Affordable Housing i _ -- ? Opportunities Affordable Housing i r2 - ' ------ Railroad Tracks t ?I Existing Open Open Space LJ Space Rivers & Lakes j - - __ - i I l I - n 0.3 I - LJ Ll bEy,<aw osu,o? -? - 27 Miles m- F_• s r I <?L?,1 1 n » 50-75 Units r F v t l ? I aI °t i ILi , t r ,;s? ? ` ?{ I I ? \ ?' Ill J \ / ? I? j?!rr}, J .. ' ? _. r ? +'rrFr,?fo4 C, # r 7 fArYF' r x a p", ,y a ,'? - I ?--?. \:` ?.£?rT l?? 1`?Sl i ,..? A•. ' .,1' .fit ?? - , r I Units \r Cv? \ 1 r? f J111, 4, _j tfl tt _ Pilkin County ...,.-- ? ??",,i f} roc h` „$ ?-4?y z D o is a ro Are * M 'RS ?i3!"-?' d? t!\S' ?,.'w Transportation Transit Oriented Pared Poundary _ r ,r Improvements Development Affordable Housing Mixed Use. T.O.D. 6 Town Boundary -' r ?•"`` ry' •- '?, -J Opportunities Affordable Housing ykt } ; - ?-?{ - a e Railroad Tracks ,N'?. d p•. r?" Existing Open 1\ ?, - 4 • r ?.'. , Open Space Space Rivers & Lakes ?',.: Sr S 0.2 - Miles J1 • +7 + ?} g 111"i 7 -0 flrY t ?? ? \+. ?r "YR r ?i .;tt" ' Y??'r • f{.. ! ?,? ? 1 1 IRl'), SYfytt-'b t... ?? ik A\ - j ti, •.a i r ° ? r f , f 9' i.'e?r t t '{ , 44 a - - f? f W . IL' l ?? x "If I t ? '?, r ?f t . ?,J ?` `:.?, t l?.qq i ? ? „? •y ? `,r ;;i„?t Ja •• ?? P +fT?!`. ? Y tj° ?; +, . is 1f Ei w J.. g Ea le-Vail Are Transportation Transit Oriented Parcel Boundary Improvements Development Mixed Use T.O.D. & Town Boundary Affordable Housing I -? Opportunities -- Affordable Housing Railroad Tracks 11 II Existing Open Open Space a Space Rivers & Lakes ?j 0.25 Miles 200 Uni s ? c. \ Mlxed Use Commerical , p(fordable Housing f+?fr ;SJ °t i 1 50 to 100 rrt yN" X, ?;' Units \ t 1 L L , 5 ' +1 : YI r 1t 1?.,. 1 f}trliy x} r }? ?) ? 1t j 19 a?A f ?o "t t Ce r ? - 1 iy4 t>??a? f +1 i _ ,l 1wj' k a f Ir{gl t'-'y1 rt "-- { t,t rt ? ? d I?t t t ' ? t't ? t r ?ri y ?? tc 'S ° II t ?rrAk??I ? t { ,r ,? , t,:?; 1 ? r y e? E6 h? ?Y r v?rrvt \ t / P r. 2 ? ? ? ?? ?k 9r~ ?' t J??? ? 9Y' J, 1 j` p3?4 y r » r / s to a A41 w s { y><? f Y.r +? t r a fA ( wj?.? I'}? tt "??t'? } { P}- :{ 47 ?.? r ?t n Sr t2' ?t JINN',' J Route County - -- _ •-- County _ Grand - ,- i Eagle County Co9o , Com munity Public Lands l Boundar P rc .• __ ,' rJ a e y er Buff Statc of Colorado Town Boundary - ' open BLM Space Rivers & Lakes U.S.Forest Service -i Wilderness , -' L7 -1 -i- - , f r " - 3 . mmry r - : M? Miles ? 4 X-I Summit County 0 0 to I i I I I I I Basaft Pitkin County Lake County El Jebel Area T tOne d Percc1 6ov- 0 I pmenl \` \ I MI M I TO.O. E Torm 2ountlary I _ Aifu HouNng _1 AHOrtlaW. 0le Nou;in9 T- Raltreotl Tracks Ewialln90pan HI -I Open Spaco Specs Rlvors Elal<en -yl 0.4 IImo- I ? -. Miles I / ?? \\ ti sue-.: 3y/4 3"',`.. ? 1;-F-1---?---- I 11i'7rr, d }, 4 SC 4 _JqI •s. 1 stl {y to - y 1. ? i J ?.i3? ?? ?? .?( f„. \ l I I - so J? ?v r 1111' I? h? I? t n r .-. ?? - I y c w > '. i2Y ., Vie` s 3 ^ ta'?r F , ?. J,e7` ?: Ord Mg, f r .4?t . l 1 I N - ,may *.. ? ?Ittt TAB i F r .? " I , "- ? ll try..-r? ? ? '-- i ` c? ;. i I. ?n K x A. - I )_- I 1 - -- ad I --------------------- Town of Gypsum I I F - ?, rm?ponouon _ i - ? var.cl eo?naary MI tl =: iA.D. C p Torm Boundary --- - - --'- Afiortlabl H 9 qp tl bl tloursin9 -? - Opportunlbc -- Rallroatl "ca"a - ?I Exicbn90pen - I - open space u Spa:o _. RIVaM E lat:. OS Miles ?? ' 3 I f , IX\ \ ? ? t r'1 e r ,- t e !, i t5 ,may r ( "Al 4 d F v?y,Sr?, f nd, : ? ------- h It M 4' s Y V Jf?? 1 t 500-800 Units j l'. 1 1 S Wolcott Area Transportation Transit Oriented Parcel Boundary -------- - Improvements ? Development 1 ? \ ,•\ Affordable Housing Mixed Use T.O.D. B V Town Boundary Opportunities Affordable Housing Railroad Tracks Existing Open Open Space a Space _ Rivers & Lakes 0.25 i ?nyo " - _ \ I Miles i ORAFT sustainable communities 2010 Appendix B Community separator Maps • • 1 40 Open Space Criteria Mapping -- - -- Privately Owned Properties that Meet Analysis Criteria & are Touching - -I_? I_I? J Community Buffers - _J_ Parcels that Meet Open I _ Space Criteria & that Touch BLM Community Buffers' 1 1 T f I- Community Buffers State _ I t? _ 1-70 Viewshed USFS - eline) (Viewable to Parcels Boundary VIAIderness 'Open Space Criteria Areas meet one or more of the following criteria _I r 1) WtIhin 100 year food plain or major streams; Or 2) Has Four or more wildlife habitat occurances; Or 3) Falls CNHP Potential Conservation Areas; Or --- 4) Falls within identified d Sensitive Ridgeline Analysis areas; AND e C ? I 5) Located in Vacant, Agricultural and Ranching Lands parcels Miles - e ?I V F 06 e -n , r a -- 'o 1 I ° Wolcott % I v ?ypsum i _ - - •o V V 1L ` ` b r ' (7 LEI o IJ I I ? p,? r { l?1'11? 1i1 1 l"- e-- J f _I unities Sustainable P'?72010 = luring is better here u 10/2V2008 Su.lai.able Communities 2010 Sustaina) a Communities 2010 • We're standing at the crossroads seeking the future T • If we don't know where we're going, how are we going to get there? i 2 Sustainable Communities 2010 Sustaina)Ie Communities 2010 • The County has become focused internally IM ?i4v`In EAGLE COUNTY • Mission: To be the model of excellence for mountain communities by 2010 • Purpose: To enhance the quality of people's lives Sustainable Communities 2010 3 nt? Sustaina) e Communities 2010- As a consequence, we have become focused externally • Quality of Life Survey Conducted - Growth & Land Use - Transportation and Traffic - Affordable Housing and Cost of Living - Environmental Protection - Provision of Services , e.4.i..64Cd -?+VU,w -hlfrvlfiJl? EAGLE COUNTY q 4, Sustainable'Communities 2010 What is Sustainable Communities C ?mn y/ 2010 • It will create a set of tools and techniques to evaluate growth impacts and identify potential mitigation • It will create a better future • It will improve the quality of life • It will identify where we need to be as compared to where we are (the gap) • It will identify methods to get where we want to be (close the gap) • It will provide opportunity to share information with town and community leaders to assist with ptrbloc policy forrntation Sustainable'Communides 2010, 5 g Quality of Life Index Where are we & where do we need to be? _.Ucllt Y,.? . S&5M/Y.r w Rr ?abrls Community Separators: LOS: Moderate d Goal: Preserve and enhance community separators by 2025 Key Gap: 3,288 acres (219 acres/yr) Cost: $6.5M/yr $3M t -r, faw Parks: 93M .. ,?, LOS: Good ? ,'w spa Goal: Maintain existing level of service (1,006 acres) Gap: N.A. - current standard is being met ,- AL .: Environmental Management System: w -V V LOS: Moderate "" ate. W Goal: Reduce energy consumption and reduce solid waste Gap: Solid waste (12 Ibs - 5 Ibs = 7 Ibs per person/day) Cost: Pay-As-You-Throw; recycling MRF ($3,21VI); RECON Outlet Store Sustainable Communiifies 2010 s i A Quality of Life Index i S ?? i i ? Where are we & where do we need to be. u4 n u Commun t n .,`utn y,! r, $23Ricaptis Transportation (Roads): LOS: (County) Moderate; (State) Poor v Goal: Maintain Level of Service C & D (County & Staf) ' °'° Good Gap: County - Current condition is fair State - Current condition is poor $238/ it t C Rd C t $4,673k.ptia oun s cap a os y Sl*hA State Rds $4,673/capita V ?, • rm ntod?me c?a Mass Transit (ECO): $4oo?m? LOS: Good (Regional); No Service (Local) ; Goal: Increase Regional System & provide Local vt*wsom V qF Feeder System im Qua Gaol Quality of Life Index j Where are we & where do we need to s. ".. 6 4cm'Iw be? $600/mPtia Pedestrian Trails: LOS: Moderate Goal: Complete Core Trail (63 miles) by 2020 Gap: 33 miles constructed; 30 miles to complete Cost: $600/capita $I "Ioq. ft. Workforce Housing: LOS: Poor P= Quo Good Goal: Maintain and improve affordable housing stock Gap: 3,500 units to "catch up" 8,000 units to "keep up" by 2015 Key Cost: $144/sq. ft. _ A „. I $3M Sustainable Communities 2010, i3= $3M 'td. n :oi Quality of-Life Index Where are we & where do we need to ` be? Health Care: LOS: Moderate: Serving 54% of the uninsured 2010 ti b l e $3.9M on y a d popu Goal: To serve 80% of the uninsur $233,567 Gap: 28,556 appointment slots to "catch up" AWd= 332 appt slots to "keep up" PM 3 , Cost: $3.9M annually to "catch up" Key i $233,567 to "keep up" :itY'{. MY OIS Dental Care: $3M LOS: Poor. Serving less than 1% $aM Goal: To serve 6% of the population by 2010 Gap: 3,144 appt slots to "catch up" 2,080 appt slots to "keep up" annually. $383,93% , Cost: $383,935 to "catch up" $301,600 to "keep up" maim Good Su4l,,,-able Communities 2010 9 Quality of Life Index Where are we & where do we need -to. be? Child Care: LOS: Below Moderate: Meeting 40% of need Goal: To meet 50% of the need by 2010 Gap: 300 licensed spaces to "catch up" 24 spaces to "keep up" Cost: $3,124,800 to "catch up" $249,984 to "keep up" Assisted Living: LOS: Poor. Currently does not exist Goal: To provide a 45 bed facility by 2015 to meet 22% of need Gap: 45 beds to "catch up" ? ??a.iza,snn $249,984 Key $3M r?.,...., $3M What do we do to improve the future (close the gap) without raising property taxes? Community Separators: • Preserve public lands • Preserve existing open space • Encourage landscape enhancement/screening • Obtain conservation easements • Obtain fee simple ownership • Create zoning overlays • Implement growth boundaries • Implement a TDR program Park Lands: • Require park land dedication • Preserve existing parks Sustainable Comm unthes 2010 ky What do we do to improve the future (close the gap) without raising property°6pr-? takes? Environmental Management System: • Retrofits, incentives, investments, recycling, fees, etc. Roads: • Impact fees • Grants • Development fees What do we do to improve the future (close the gap) without raising property taxes? Workforce Housing: • Public-private housing • Down payment assistance • .Housing guidelines • Employer buy-downs Social Capital (Health, Dental, and Child Care and Assisted Living): • Grants • Client fees • Donations • Medicaid • Public/Private partnerships • Etc. Sustainable Communities201013 Other Products of Sustainable Communities 2010 • Fiscal Impact Tool • Build Out Analysis • Town/County Mapping (Refer to Report) • IGA's (Basalt Prototype) • Transportation Collaborative Build-Out Ana ysis Budd Out-Eagle i County • .., ?, . . ._: ? - ; - ... Owesnp UMt ceoee±M A o A ?• ot.r ' ., .y . ^, ?? • ? dr '''??r f ,, ? +g?? ?,? y . 41 • n ? I x,. f d Y ? I t w,3, A t r •.. ;. : Sustainable Communities 2010 Build-Out Analysis Summary Table 15 ?ntn y%. w.c,em-e. Phase 1: Theoretical Build-Out Study Area Existing Units Additional Units Maximum Units Awn 3104 4469 7573 Basalt 1357 225 1582 Eagle 2217 T77 2994 Gypsum 2015 2649 4864 Mintum 455 1894 2349 Red Cliff 132 23 155 Vail 6929 419 7348 Ad Towns 16209 10456 26665 UNncorp. 13050 8909 21959 Eagle County 29259 19365 48824 Sustainable Communities 2010 16 x`um_y Sustainable Communities,201Q 17 . ;....ate. Next Ste )s 4 • Continue to identify and evaluate methods to close the gap • Continue to share information and foster additional discussion and collaboration with towns and community leaders • Continue to "check in" with citizens regarding quality of life • Identify additional indicators g 18 .. Prcont?zaton and ;Bu:d } et Process.- Sustainable 5,6- nities 20 1Q I How do we use this information?