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?