HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-04 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Regular Meeting AgendaVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Evening Agenda TOWN Of VAIL'
Town Council Chambers
75 South Frontage Road W., Vail, CO 81657
6:00 PM, October 4, 2016
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time Council will
consider an item.
Public comment will be taken on each agenda item.
Citizen participation offers an opportunity for citizens to express opinions or ask questions regarding town
services, policies or other matters of community concern, and any items that are not on the agenda. Please
attempt to keep comments to three minutes; time limits established are to provide efficiency in the conduct of the
meeting and to allow equal opportunity for everyone wishing to speak.
1. Citizen Participation
2. Proclamations
2.1. Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2016, In Recognition of the Styrofoam 5 min.
Stoppers for receiving the 2016 President's Environmental Youth Award as
representatives of the EPA Region 8
Presenter(s): Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager
Background: In August 2016 Leadville students Nicole Caves, Hunter Dee,
Clara Kirr, and Violet Hill, the "Styrofoam Stoppers" traveled to Washington
D.C. to receive the President's Environmental Youth Award from President
Obama in recognition of a program they implemented to eliminate the use of
Styrofoam in their school district. As part of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Region 8, the Town of Vail wishes to recognize the value of youth
leadership and environmental stewardship demonstrated by the students
and the work they did to reduce waste in the region, and set an example for
all.
3. Consent Agenda
3.1. Minutes from September 6, 2016 meeting 5 min.
3.2. Minutes from September 20, 2016 meeting
4. Town Manager Report
5. Presentations / Discussion
5.1. Public Access Television Update - Channel 5 gets new name, High Five 10 min.
Access Media, and website
Presenter(s): Jake Wolf, Board Member, J.K. Perry, Executive Director,
October 4, 2016 - Page 1 of 14S
Channel 5 Public Access Community TV (new name: High Five Access
Media)
Background: Public Access TV5 is now High Five Access Media. The
nonprofit has re-created itself with a new name, logo and website,
www.highfivemedia.org, to show the community the creative opportunities at
local access media.
5.2. Resolution Supporting Eagle County Ballot Issue 1A (Affordable Workforce 10 min.
Housing)
Presenter(s): Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership
Action Requested of Council: Support of Ballot Issue 1A with adoption of
Resolution.
Background: A "YES" vote on Issue 1A ensures our community can remain
competitive to keep locals local, creating a funding source much like other
resort communities including Summit County, Pitkin County, and Teton
County, and addresses housing accessibility throughout Eagle County
through a variety of affordable housing programs including down payment
assistance and public-private partnerships. See attached possible uses of
funds and FAQ's, or visit http://voteyesonla.com for more details.
6. Action Items
6.1. The Homestake Condos HOA is requesting permission to proceed through 15 min.
the development review process for a trash/recycle enclosure to be located
in town -owned right-of-way.
Presenter(s): Brian Garner, Planner
Action Requested of Council: Approve as requested; Approve with
modifications; or deny the request.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Town Council deny the
applicant's request to proceed through the development review process.
6.2. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016, First Reading, Gross Residential Floor 30 min.
Area, an ordinance for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-3,
Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code concerning the
method for measuring Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within the
hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family
residential (R), two-family primary/secondary residential (PS), residential
cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium density multiple -
family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail
Village Townhouse (WT) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto
(PEC16-0024).
Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager
Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve
with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016 upon first
reading.
Background:
This is a proposal to clarify the existing policy on Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA) by modifying the text of Section 12-15-3 Definition,
Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, relating to how Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is calculated in the following zone districts:
hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family
residential (R), two-family primary/secondary residential (PS), residential
cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium density multiple -
family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail
October 4, 2016 - Page 2 of 149
Village Townhouse (VVT) districts.
The proposed ordinance would clarify that the lowest level of a structure is
the floor area with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including any floor areas
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. Only the below grade portions
of these floor areas would be eligible for the GRFA basement deduction.
This is a clarification of an existing policy and existing code language; it is
not an application to amend the regulations.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning and Environmental Commission
recommends the Vail Town Council approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of
2016 upon first reading.
6.3. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016, First Reading, Regulation of 15 min.
Greenhouses and Hoop Houses
Presenter(s): Jonathan Spence, Planner
Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve
with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016 upon first
reading.
Background: It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for
residents to participate in growing food or ornamental crops within a
minimal regulatory framework while reducing the potential impact on
neighboring properties.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing
on the proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12,
2016 where a recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town
Council by a vote of 4-2 (Stockmar and Gillette opposed).
6.4. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016, First Reading, Code Amendments to 15 min.
Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental
Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use
Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property owner submittal
requirement.
Presenter(s): Jonathan Spence, Planner
Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve
with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016 upon first
reading.
Background:
It is the intent of the amendment to clarify and codify existing standard
operating procedures related to joint property owner submittal requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing
on the proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12,
2016 where a recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town
Council by a vote of 6-0.
7. Public Hearings
7.1. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance 5 min.
Amending Title 5 of the Vail Town Code by the Addition Thereto of a New
Chapter 15 Concerning the Regulation of Recreational Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (DRONES)
Presenter(s): Craig Bettis, Commander, VPD
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny
Ordinance No. 21, 2016 upon second reading
October 4, 2016 - Page 3 of 14S
Background: Unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS"), commonly known as
drones, are devices that are used or are intended to be used for flight in the
air with no onboard pilot. The Town Council finds that recreational UAS,
when operated within the Town and particularly in populated areas, present
an appreciable risk to public safety in the air and to persons and property
on the ground. The Town Council, pursuant to its authority to protect and
secure the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, desires to enact
regulations for the use and operation of recreational UAS in the Town.
7.2. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance 5 min.
Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code,
Concerning Smoking
Presenter(s): Dwight Henninger, Police Chief and Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny
Ordinance No. 22, 2016 upon second reading.
Background: In 2006, the Colorado legislature passed the Colorado Clean
Indoor Air Act, C.R.S. § 25-14-201, et seq. (the "CCIAA"), which provides
that a municipality may enact, adopt, and enforce smoking regulations that
are no less stringent than state law. The Town Council desires to repeal and
reenact Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code to comply with the CCIAA
and to regulate electronic smoking devices.
8. Adjournment
8.1. Adjournment at 7:55 pm
Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website
wwwvailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by Public Access Television Channel 5 and
available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to Channel 5 website
the week following meeting day, www.publicaccess5.org.
Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48
hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) for information.
October 4, 2016 - Page 4 of 149
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2016, In Recognition of the Styrofoam Stoppers
for receiving the 2016 President's Environmental Youth Award as representatives of the EPA
Region 8
PRESENTER(S): Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager
BACKGROUND: In August 2016 Leadville students Nicole Caves, Hunter Dee, Clara Kirr, and
Violet Hill, the "Styrofoam Stoppers" traveled to Washington D.C. to receive the President's
Environmental Youth Award from President Obama in recognition of a program they implemented
to eliminate the use of Styrofoam in their school district. As part of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Region 8, the Town of Vail wishes to recognize the value of youth leadership and
environmental stewardship demonstrated by the students and the work they did to reduce waste in
the region, and set an example for all.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2016
Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2016 - The Syrofoam Stoppers Project Description
October 4, 2016 - Page 5 of 14�
TOWN OF VAIL"
Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2016
In Recognition of the Styrofoam Stoppers of Lake County, CO for receiving the 2016
President's Environmental Youth Award as representatives of the EPA Region 8
WHEREAS, The President's Environmental Youth Award established in 1971 recognizes
outstanding environmental projects by K-12 youth who promote awareness of our nation's natural
resources, encourage positive community involvement, and protecting our air, land, water, and
ecology; and,
WHEREAS, The Town of Vail, Eagle and Lake County, CO are located within the EPA
Region 8 and many families live in Lake County and are employed in and contribute to the Town of
Vail; and,
WHEREAS, The Vail Town Council recognizes a group of students that exemplify town
values of Innovation, Collaboration, and Environmental Stewardship; and,
WHEREAS, the Styrofoam Stoppers: Nicole Caves, Hunter Dee, Clara Kirr, and Violet Hill
discovered that their school district sent 120,000 lbs. of waste to the landfill each year, with food
packaging such as polystyrene comprising 16%. Working with the school system and Cloud City
Conservation Center, the Styrofoam Stoppers performed an economic analysis demonstrating that it
would be more cost effective to wash reusable dishes than purchase and dispose of polystyrene;
and,
WHEREAS, the Styrofoam Stoppers convinced the school board to end the use of
polystyrene and switch to reusable items in the entire district beginning in the 2015 school year,
significantly reducing waste and contributing to their communities' overall waste diversion goals;
and,
WHEREAS, the Styrofoam Stoppers serve as an example in their community and the region
of youth leadership in civic engagement, community pride, and environmental stewardship; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed to the community that the Vail Town Council
recognizes Nicole Caves, Hunter Dee, Clara Kirr, and Violet Hill of the Styrofoam Stoppers for their
excellent and noteworthy achievement of receiving the 2015 President's Environmental Youth Award
and their leadership in waste reduction and environmental stewardship and appreciate their
contributions to the broader community.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
Attest:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
October 4, 2016 - Page 6 of 149
Styrofoam Stoppers Project Description
Styrofoam Stoppers: 'Ban Styrofoam in Lake County Schools"
Youth Initiative
Lake County School District enacted a Styrofoam' ban in 2015 thanks to a group of 3rd grade students
called the Styrofoam Stoppers. Students raised this issue;
recruited other students, parents and community members
to support their cause; formed a group called the "Styrofoam
Stoppers;" conducted research and presented to the school
board. They were the driving force in these efforts.
It all started with Clara Kirr. Her interest in eliminating
Styrofoam from use at her school began with her project for
the science fair in 2nd grade. Her project was to see how the
heat from the sun affected the decomposition of different
materials. She chose plastic, Styrofoam and compostable
(plant -based) cups as her materials.
While researching and working on her project she learned that a Styrofoam cup in nature would take
1 million or more years to breakdown. This caused her to think and create actions to stop using
Styrofoam in her life. She made changes, including asking for an alternative product to take her
leftovers from restaurants home, not purchasing the product, being conscience on where her family
ate depending on what products they used.
more and see what they could do.
As she started 3rd grade she found that the school
snacks were placed on Styrofoam materials. She came
home upset and was trying to figure out what to do. She
shared her thoughts with a few of her friends, thus
creating a group in her school called Styrofoam
Stoppers.
They worked as a team to research, understand barriers
and look for alternatives for the school. They also
presented their findings to classes at their school and
reached out to a local conservation organization to learn
The Styrofoam Stoppers also began making changes in their personal habits. They used alternatives
during their snack time: if offered Styrofoam they would ask for a napkin instead. They encouraged
other students to do the same.
'During their project, the Styrofoam Stoppers also learned that Styrofoam is a trademarked brand owned by the Dow Chemical
Company. Since it is commonly used to refer to polystyrene foam, they decided to continue using the name, recognizing that
what they're actually banning is the use of polystyrene foam.
October 4, 2016 - Page 7 of 149
Styrofoam Stoppers- PEYA Nomination 2
During the spring of their 3rd grade year, the Styrofoam Stoppers teamed up with the Lake County
High School Green Team and the Cloud City Conservation Center. Together, they conducted waste
audits in all three of their rural school district's schools, presented to the school board and convinced
the district to stop the use of Styrofoam.
Environmental Need and Appropriateness
The Styrofoam Stopper's project addressed a critical need in the community. The Lake County landfill
has less than five years of life left, which will necessitate a multi-million dollar taxpayer investment to
build a new landfill. Community -waste diversion rates also lag far behind
regional and state averages.
The school district is a major producer of waste:according to the waste audits
the Styrofoam Stoppers conducted in 2015, the district was sending almost
120,000 pounds of landfill waste each year, 16% of which is food packaging
including Styrofoam.
In 2011, Lake County Government recognized the importance of waste and set
aggressive waste diversion goals in concert with aggressively raising landfill
tipping fees. Key strategies identified in the 2011 the Lake County Sustainability
Plan include increasing community access to recycling and compost, developing
community compost efforts and increasing waste diversion in key entities
starting with the school district.
This project coincided with community efforts and positively engaged their school district in broader
efforts to reduce landfill waste. Lake County is currently in the midst of a Waste Diversion Initiative,
which will add two new recycle drop sites by the end of 2015 and compost in 2016.
The Styrofoam Stoppers calculated that their school was throwing away 20,480 styrofoam places each
year, just for snack! This did not include the additional styrofoam waste from lunches. By banning
styrofoam and switching to reusable bowls,silverware and trays, they helped the district significantly
reduce their landfill stream.
Environmental Impact
The Styrofoam Stopper's project made a strong impact on the school district's policies and practices.
Beginning in the 2015-2016 school year, the school district will no longer use Styrofoam, and will
significantly reduce its landfill stream through a pilot composting program. In 2014-15, LCSD was
spending $4,500 per year on Styrofoam. This is a lot of Styrofoam that will not longer be purchased as
that amount will now be used to maintain and wash reusable items.
Their leadership positively impacted their community, demonstrating that youth can be
environmental leaders. The presentation to the school district was well received, and the business
manager thanked the students because both the composting and Styrofoam bans are "win, win,
wins." She explained that student leadership in this project is an excellent model for what they hope
students are learning in school; with the grant funding, the district will reduce the environmental
October 4, 2016 - Page 8 of 149
Styrofoam Stoppers- PEYA Nomination
impact of its waste stream; and within a few years, the district will begin saving money by not
purchasing Styrofoam.
3
Several school board members commented that people had come and complained before, but the
Styrofoam Stoppers were the first group of students to have done such high quality research and to
have come to them with solutions. The school board was pleased that the action research project
brought students to them having already solved a problem. The close collaboration with school
district staff and community organizations led students to be able to develop solutions to the waste
issues and fund these solutions for the district. The school board is also in
the process of adding youth representatives, so this reinforced their
perspective that students have a valuable role to play in shaping district
policies.
Completion of Goals
The Styrofoam Stoppers accomplished their goal: successfully convincing
the Lake County School District to ban Styrofoam beginning in the 2015-16
school year.
They accomplished this goals through a participatory action research
process and strong youth -adult partnerships. The Styrofoam Stoppers
reached out to the Cloud City Conservation Center (C4)and presented their
research findings about Styrofoam and calculations of styrofoam use in the
schools. C4 teamed them up with the high school Green Team. Together
they completed waste audits in each of the school district's three schools. These findings were
compiled into waste audit reports and submitted to the school district.
Working with the conservation center, the Styrofoam Stoppers wrote for a local mini -grant and
conducted a KickStarter campaign to pay for the reusable items to replace Styrofoam. They also
worked with the food services director and district's chief financial officer- together they figured out
that the district could save money by paying for additional staff time to wash dishes instead of
purchasing Styrofoam.
Finally, the Styrofoam Stoppers and the high school Green Team "Waste Warriors" created digital
stories and Photovoice boards. They presented their findings to the school board, proposing two
solutions: a Styrofoam ban and composting. The school board was very receptive, openly thanking
students for their thorough research, and for coming to them with solutions and funding to make
changes happen.
Beginning in 2015, thanks to their dedication, teamwork, and efforts Lake County School District
students will no longer use styrofoam!
Community Involvement
The Styrofoam Stoppers positively involved the local conservation center, a local researcher, school
district administrators, high school students, and parents.
October 4, 2016 - Page 9 of 149
Styrofoam Stoppers- PEYA Nomination 4
Students: Clara recruited her friends to help her with the project, and the Styrofoam Stoppers
presented to other students in her school.
Conservation Center: They worked with Executive Director Lynne Westerfield who helped set up the
waste audits and instructed students on making waste stream calculations.
Local Researcher: They involved Erin Allaman from Youth Culture Works who assisted the Styrofoam
Stoppers in creating a Photovoice exhibit and digital story of their work.
School Administrators: The project involved the Food Services Director and Chief Financial Officer of
the school district in doing budget calculations that showed that it was more financially sustainable
and affordable to use reusable dishes rather than Styrofoam.
Parents: Students involved their parents to supervise waste audits and attend the school board
meeting.
Project innovation
This project used innovative approaches to achieve their results, including scientific research,
participatory action research and youth -adult partnerships. Their use of an experimental science
project, library research, waste audits, photography and digital storytelling. These innovative
methods shaped their ability to make proposals to the school board and for the Styrofoam Stoppers
to develop actionable solutions to the issue.
Lake County School District post with digital story:
http://www.lakecountyschools.net/blog/2015/04/17/waste-warriors-styrofoam-stoppers-make-Icsd-g
reener
Styrofoam Stopper Kickstarter campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/vba2ddk
Cloud City Conservation Center post:
http://cloudcityconservation.org/school-waste-audit-findings-are-in/
Soundness of approach, rationale, and scientific design
Clara, Hunter, Nicole and Violet had a very clear approach to the problem, in the words of their digital
story script: "STOP the use of Styrofoam!"
Clara's science fair project and the group's internet research built their content knowledge about
Styrofoam and lunch service materials. The project began with an experimental project about
biodegradation. This was followed by internet and library research. As a result, students brought a
strong understanding of the health and environmental risks of Styrofoam to their project.
While there are clear environmental and health impacts of Styrofoam, this was not enough to ban
Styrofoam. Using additional research, the group was able to develop a solution and show the district
how and why to ban Styrofoam from a policy, community need and financial standpoint. The waste
audits and participatory action research project drew on sound qualitative research methods of
October 4, 2016 - Page 10 of 14
Styrofoam Stoppers- PEYA Nomination
5
observation, interviews, photography and analysis to develop solutions. By triangulating their
methods and perspectives of various stakeholders they created an empirically valid and persuasive
argument for their Styrofoam ban.
October 4, 2016 - Page 11 of 14
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Minutes from September 6, 2016 meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes from September 6, 2016 meeting
TOWN OF VAIP
October 4, 2016 - Page 12 of 14
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Chapin.
Members present:
Member absent:
Staff members present
Dave Chapin, Mayor
Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro Tem
Kevin Foley
Kim Langmaid
Greg Moffet
Dick Cleveland
Jen Mason
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Tammy Nagel, Deputy Town Clerk
1. Citizen Participation
Police Chief Dwight Henninger invited the council and community to join the Vail Police
Department in celebrating their 50th anniversary on September 11 at the Ford Park from 10:30
am — 1:00 pm.
Stephen Connolly, resident, gave a shout out to public works on the road striping and would
like to see the same at the West Vail Roundabout. Connolly would like to see the speed limit be
enforced on the frontage roads.
Susie Tjossem, resident, congratulated council and town staff on the fabulous 50th birthday
party and loved the Trailblazer Award. Tjossem expressed concern about the lack of cell phone
coverage in the Buffher Creek residential area. Tjossem reminded them the cell signals were
enhanced for the 2015 championships, but since then the signal has gotten worse. Tjossem
stated a lot of citizens have removed land lines so the cell service needs to consistently
available in this area, especially in light of the fact there is no other means of communicating for
emergency situations.
Lou Meskimen, resident, shared with council that he enjoyed the special event Gourmet on
Gore.
2. Proclamations
2.1. Proclamation No. 5, Series of 2016, Recognizing Dr. Thomas I. Steingberg as the first
recipient of Vail's Trailblazer Award
Presenter(s): Dave Chapin, Mayor
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 1
October 4, 2016 - Page 13 of 14
Background: Vail's Trailblazer Award was created as a legacy project during the town's 50th
Birthday Party Celebration and given to Dr. Thomas I. Steinberg during a luncheon for
dignitaries and recognized during the festivities of the birthday party at Donovan Pavilion. The
award recognizes those who have made long-standing contributions to the community and will
be awarded on an annual basis by the Vail Town Council.
Mayor Chapin read the proclamation in full. A standing ovation was given by the audience and
photos were taken with Vail Town Council and Dr. Steinberg.
3. Any action as a result of executive session
There was no action taken.
4. Consent Agenda
4.1. Minutes from August 2, 2016 meeting
Moffet moved to approve August 2, 2016 minutes; Foley seconded the motion. The motion
passed (5-0).
4.2. Minutes from August 16, 2016 meeting
Moffet moved to approve August 16, 2016 minutes; Foley seconded the motion. It was noted to
correct the vote on page 4 to read 5-2 and on page 7 the vote to reflect 7-0. The motion passed
(5-0).
4.3. Construction Contract for a new picnic shelter at Donovan Park
Background: The project is included in the 2016 RETT budget. The town received two bids for
the project. The low bid by R.A. Nelson is within the existing budget. With approval, work will
begin in mid-September with anticipated completion by mid-November.
Moffet moved to direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with R.A. Nelson
to construct a new picnic shelter at Donovan Park. Bruno seconded the motion. The motion
passed (5-0).
4.4. Bus/Vehicle Wash Construction Contract
Background: A new Bus/Vehicle Wash for the transit buses was budgeted in 2016. The project
was put out to bid in July and bids were opened on August 11.
Moffet moved to direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with NS Wash
Corp. Foley seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-0).
4.5. Vail Transportation Center Generator Construction Contract
Background: A new generator for the Vail Transportation Center was budgeted in 2015. Funds
were re -appropriated by the town council in early 2016 for the replacement of the existing
generator. The project was put out to bid in July and bids were opened on August 11, 2016.
Moffet moved to direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with CE & Power
Systems in the amount of $159,480.00; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (5-0).
5. Town Manager Report
There was no report at this time.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 14 of 14
6. Action Items
6.1. Resolution No. 29, Series of 2016, A Resolution Adopting the VAIL HOUSING 2027, "A
Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community Through the Creation and Support of
Resident Housing in Vail", and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
Presenter(s): George Ruther, Director of Community Development and Steve Lindstrom, Chair
of the Vail Local Housing Authority
Background: Vail's first strategic plan for housing was adopted in 2008. As a result, the
community has made progress towards addressing the need to provide homes for year round
residents of Vail. Unfortunately, housing continues to challenge the community and a new and
updated strategic plan for housing is needed. Vail Housing 2027 is a new and updated strategic
plan.
Ruther introduced the Vail Local Housing Authority (the "VLHA") board members that were
present at the meeting. Ruther stated resident housing is the number one concern and issue
within our community. The goal of the Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community
(the "Plan") is to obtain 1,000 deed restricted housing by 2027. Ruther explained it was easier
to go after the deed restriction rather than development of new housing. VLHA chairman, Steve
Lindstrom, reviewed the County housing stats; which showed 9 out of 10 homes sold in Vail are
sold to second home owners. The Plan would offer new buyers purchasing assistance in
exchange for a deed restricted unit. Ruther stated the decision process would need to be
changed by council granting permission for the VLHA to have the authority to purchase housing
as it becomes available. The current process is too long and usually ends up with the unit being
sold prior to purchasing permission being granted. Chapin invited public comments at this time:
Steven Connolly, resident, asked if it is the responsibility of the government to provide
housing. He thought it was time to look at outlier ideas such as dorm housing in the woods,
turning the muni building into housing and parking etc. He also asked why Vail Resorts was
not included as a participant in the housing strategic plan.
Matt Morgan, business owner, thought the plan sounded brilliant. Morgan agreed with
Ruther that housing is an issue and if there was some mechanism to encourage deed
restriction it could work rather then trying to develop housing for employees. He preferred
the criteria include only Vail employees and not Eagle County employees.
Mery Lapin, Vail resident, cautioned council about giving a political decision to another
board, i.e. VLHA. Lapin went on to ask how the current deed restricted units are verified,
what the definition of a resident was and what happens when a deed restricted unit falls into
foreclosure. Lapin asked council to think about 50 years from now and maybe merging the
two cities (Avon and Vail) to combine housing resources.
Kim Redicker, resident, thought the plan was a brilliant idea. Redicker stated she had
served on the VLHA, Town Council and lives in deed restricted housing. Rediker agreed
with Ruther that council would need to appoint an entity to work on behalf of the town that is
qualified and can move quickly to ensure purchase housing as it becomes available on the
market.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 15 of 14
Ruther addressed some of the concerns brought up in public comments.
✓ employee housing is resident housing in context
✓ 100% compliance with current deed restriction.
✓ Cost of deed restriction varies depending on the unit and there is value to them.
✓ This program would encourage employers to purchase deed restriction.
Council comments included the following:
✓ Moffet: liked the plan and had some suggestions to modify the plan, expressed the need for
the elected officials to help what the free market has failed to do.
✓ Bruno: felt the plan was bold and should be pursued. Bruno thought the return will be great
from the people who are joining our community. She expressed concern about the loss of
residences due to AirBnB and second homeowners.
✓ Langmaid: thanked staff for their efforts. Had seen this community change. Her home has
a deed restricted apartment, but other homes in her neighborhood do not have deed
restriction — the dynamics of the neighborhood has changed due to rental by owners.
✓ Chapin supports the VLHA making housing purchasing decisions and agrees the board
needs to meet monthly.
Foley made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 29, Series of 2016, A Resolution Adopting the
VAIL HOUSING 2027, "A Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community Through the
Creation and Support of Resident Housing in Vail", and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
Moffet seconded the motion and it passed (5-0).
6.2. Ordinance No. 23, Series 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance to Amend Section 12-13-5,
Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program (Exchange
Program), Section 12-23-6, Commercial Linkage; Methods of Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6,
Inclusionary Zoning; Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, Concerning the Payment of Fees
in Lieu of Providing Employee Housing and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
Presenter(s): Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager
Background: In February of 2016, the Town Council requested background information and
began discussions on how the Town of Vail calculates its annual fee in lieu for mitigation of
employee housing impacts (Vail Town Code Sections 12-23, 12-24) and the Employee Housing
Unit (EHU) Exchange Program (Section 12-13-5). Several work sessions have been held since
then, including a joint work sessions with the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) to determine
what changes could be made to improve performance towards meeting the goals of the
program. The VLHA made recommendations and the PEC concurred with those
recommendations.
The ordinance was reviewed with a reminder the legislation was written in an attempt to make it
less convenient for person/s to "buy-out" their housing requirements in an effort to keep more
housing stock inventory. There were no public comments. Moffet moved to pass Ordinance
No. 23 on first reading; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (5-0).
6.3. Ordinance No. 24, Series 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending Sections of
Chapter 2 in the Vail Town Code to Update the Investment Policy for the Town of Vail
Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 16 of 14
Background: The town's investment policy has not been updated in over 15 years. The
proposed ordinance will update the policy to slightly broaden categories of investments that the
town is allowed to participate in, as well as make administrative updates. An overview was
presented; Moffet asked for some clarification about taxable bonds. Chapin asked for public
comment and there was none. Moffet motioned to pass Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2016,
upon first reading; Foley seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-0).
6.4. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending Sections 10-1-
2, 10-1-3 and 14-10-5 of the Vail Town Code Related to Wildland Fire Resistant Building
Practices
Presenter(s): Jonathan Spence, Planner
Background: The purpose of these amendments is to relocate language concerning technical
matters related to roofing to the Building Code while maintaining design related matters within
the Design Standards. In addition, the amendments clarify allowable roofing materials, proposes
a reduction in allowable roof repairs of nonconforming roofs before the requirement that a roof
be replaced in its entirety is triggered and encourages the use of ignition resistant building
materials.
The ordinance was reviewed and it was noted there would be greater attention given to building
materials, technical standards of materials and regulations of non forming roofs. There was no
public comment. Moffet moved to pass Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2016, on first reading;
Foley seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-0).
7. Public Hearings
7.1. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 - Second Reading, An Ordinance Repealing and
Reenacting Ordinance No. 11, Series 1990, Establishing Special Development District No. 24,
Warner Development, Pursuant to Article A, Special Development (SDD) District, Chapter 9,
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
Presenter(s): Matt Panfil, Planner
Background: When SDD No. 24, Warner Development, was approved in 1990, the subject
property deviated from the underlying Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District
in regards to gross residential floor area (GRFA) and site coverage. As part of the approval it
was conditioned that the indoor pool area permanently be restricted to use as a pool. In 2004,
changes were made to the Vail Town Code with regard to the calculation of GRFA resulting in
the subject property now having an excess amount of allowable GRFA.
Moffet made a motion to table Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 to the September 20 Town
Council meeting; Foley seconded the motion. The motion passed (5-0).
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 17 of 14
There being no further business to come before the council, Moffet moved to adjourn the
meeting and Foley seconded the motion which passed (5-0) and the meeting adjourned at
8:01 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest:
Dave Chapin, Mayor
Tammy Nagel, Deputy Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2016 Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 18 of 14
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Minutes from September 20, 2016 meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes from September 20, 2016
TOWN OF VAIP
October 4, 2016 - Page 19 of 14
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by
Mayor Chapin.
Members present: Dave Chapin, Mayor
Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro Tem
Dick Cleveland
Kevin Foley
Jen Mason
Greg Moffet
Absent: Kim Langmaid
Staff members present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
1. Citizen Participation
There were no comments made during citizen participation.
2. Consent Agenda
2.1. Resolution No. 28, Series of 2016, A Resolution of the Vail Town Council Authorizing the
Town Manager to Grant Certain Utility and Access Easements Necessary for Chamonix Project
Background: The Town of Vail owns certain real property more particularly described as Parcel
B, a Resubdivision of Tract D, a Resubdivision of Vail Das Shone Filing 1, a Resubdivision of
Parcels A & B, according to the Correction Plat thereof, situated in Section 11, Township 5
South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle,
Colorado (the "Chamonix Property"). The Chamonix Project will require certain utility
easements, the exact locations of which are unknown at this point in time, as well as associated
access easements.
Moffet moved to approve Resolution No. 28, Series of 2016; Foley seconded the motion and it
passed (6-0).
2.2. Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Contract Award
Background: The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan will be updated as directed by Town
Council with a public process taking place over the next six to seven months.
Moffet moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by
the Town Attorney, with Braun Associates Inc. for the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update
to include the planning process, plan preparation and plan adoption in the amount not to exceed
$85,000. Bruno seconded the motion and it passed (6-0).
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 1
October 4, 2016 - Page 20 of 14
3. Town Manager Report
Town Manager noted several tickets were available for the Colorado Ski and Snowboard Hall of
Fame Induction Gala taking place in Vail on Oct 1.
4. Action Items
4.1. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending Title 5 of the Vail
Town Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 15 Concerning the Regulation of
Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Systems (DRONES)
Presenter(s): Craig Bettis, Commander, VPD
Background: Unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS"), commonly known as drones, are devices that
are used or are intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. The Town Council
finds that recreational UAS, when operated within the Town and particularly in populated areas,
present an appreciable risk to public safety in the air and to persons and property on the
ground. The Town Council, pursuant to its authority to protect and secure the public health,
safety and welfare of its citizens, desires to enact regulations for the use and operation of
recreational UAS in the Town.
Bettis differentiated between the commercial vs. recreational drone operations; the council
packet memo presented some of the discrepancies. He noted the ordinance addresses which
areas of air space would be restricted from recreational use of drones and that the FAA
regulates commercial use of drones (license required). He noted the ordinance identifies what
is acceptable for recreational drone usage in the town, as follows:
Recreational drones, under the Town's ordinance, must:
■ be flown below a maximum altitude of 400 feet above the ground;
■ weigh no more than 55 pounds at the time of operation, inclusive of equipment,
■ payload and fuel;
■ be flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the drone;
■ not be operated over any person not directly involved in the operation;
■ not be flown near pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, roadways, parking lots, playgrounds,
stadiums, sporting events, festivals or other open air assembly of persons, or areas or
special events subject to an FAA notice of temporary flight restriction;
■ remain clear of and not interfere with manned aircraft operations or other drones;
■ be operated during daylight hours only;
■ not be operated from a moving vehicle or other aircraft;
■ be operated in compliance with all applicable law, including any regulations adopted by the
FAA;
■ not be operated in a reckless or careless manner so as to endanger the health, safety or
well-being of persons or property; and
■ not be operated in pedestrian areas of Vail Village, Lionshead Village, including the town
owned parking structures in both Vail and Lionshead, Ford Park and the area immediately
surrounding the Vail Valley Medical Center Heli -Port; provided that The Town's drone
regulations to not apply to law enforcement or emergency services operations.
Chapin asked for public comment, no public comments were made. Moffet moved to approve
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending Title 5 of the Vail
Town Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 15 Concerning the Regulation of
Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Systems (DRONES). Bruno seconded the motion and it
passed (6-0).
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 21 of 14
4.2. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016, First Reading, An Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting
Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code, Concerning Smoking
Presenter(s): Dwight Henninger, Police Chief and Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Background: In 2006, the Colorado legislature passed the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act,
C.R.S. § 25-14-201, et seq. (the "CCIAX), which provides that a municipality may enact, adopt,
and enforce smoking regulations that are no less stringent than state law. The Town Council
desires to repeal and reenact Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code to comply with the
CCIAA and to regulate electronic smoking devices.
Town Attorney presented the ordinance that included numerous definitions, prohibitions and
permitted areas of smoking. Prohibited areas included:
A. Public Places: Smoking is prohibited in any public place.
B. Entryways: Smoking is prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any entryway.
C. Outdoor areas: Smoking is prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any outdoor patio or deck
designated as an area for the consumption of food or drinks.
D. Posted Areas: Smoking is prohibited in designated "no smoking" areas as set forth in
Sections 5-4-3 and 5-4-5.
E. Other Areas: Smoking is prohibited in those areas where smoking is prohibited by state law,
fire code regulations, or other regulations of the Town.
There was a comment about the regulations applying to bus stops and it was noted the bus
location was not included with this legislation. Moffet expressed his concern that the language
was not stringent enough (15 foot rule is not restrictive enough) and therefore did not support
the ordinance. There were some comments about why the town did not want to adopt the "25
foot rule" (Eagle County and Avon regulations) but it was suggested that Vail's topography was
not aligned well with using the 15 foot distance. Chapin asked for public input; there was no
public comment. Foley moved to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016, First Reading, An
Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code, Concerning
Smoking; Bruno seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 (Moffet — no).
5. Public Hearings
5.2. Ordinance No. 23, Series 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance to Amend Section 12-13-5,
Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program (Exchange
Program), Section 12-23-6, Commercial Linkage; Methods of Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6,
Inclusionary Zoning; Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, Concerning the Payment of Fees
in Lieu of Providing Employee Housing and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
Presenter(s): Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager
Background: In February of 2016, the Town Council requested background information and
began discussions on how the Town of Vail calculates its annual fee in lieu for mitigation of
employee housing impacts (Vail Town Code Sections 12-23, 12-24) and the Employee Housing
Unit (EHU) Exchange Program (Section 12-13-5). Several work sessions have been held since
then, including a joint work session with the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) to determine
what changes could be made to improve performance towards meeting the goals of the
program. The VLHA made recommendations and the PEC concurred with those
recommendations.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 22 of 14
There were no changes from first reading. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No.23, Series of
2016, with the following findings:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals,
objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations;
and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town
and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort
and residential community of the highest quality.
Foley seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). No public comments were given.
5.3. Ordinance No. 24, Series 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Sections of
Chapter 2 in the Vail Town Code to Update the Investment Policy for the Town of Vail
Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director
Background: The town's investment policy has not been updated in over 15 years. The
proposed ordinance will update the policy to slightly broaden categories of investments that the
town is allowed to participate in, as well as make administrative updates.
There was a proposal from Moffet to remove "repurchase agreements" from the list of "suitable
and authorized investments" included in the ordinance. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 2016; Foley seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). There was no public
comment on this topic.
5.4. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Sections 10-
1-2, 10-1-3 and 14-10-5 of the Vail Town Code Related to Wildland Fire Resistant Building
Practices
Presenter(s): Jonathan Spence, Planner
Background: The purpose of these amendments is to relocate language concerning technical
matters related to roofing to the Building Code while maintaining design related matters within
the Design Standards. In addition, the amendments clarify allowable roofing materials, proposes
a reduction in allowable roof repairs of nonconforming roofs before the requirement that a roof
be replaced in its entirety is triggered and encourages the use of ignition resistant building
materials.
It was noted by Planning Manager Chris Neubecker that no changes were made from first
reading. There were no public comments on the topic. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No.
25, Series of 2016; Cleveland seconded the motion and it passed (6-0).
5.1. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 - Second Reading, An Ordinance Repealing and
Reenacting Ordinance No. 11, Series 1990, Establishing Special Development District No. 24,
Warner Development, Pursuant to Article A, Special Development (SDD) District, Chapter 9,
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto
Presenter(s): Matt Panfil, Planner
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 23 of 14
Action Requested of Council: To approve an amendment to SDD No. 24, Warner Development,
to remove Section 5, Item 3 requiring the indoor pool area on the subject property to be
permanently restricted to use a pool.
Background: When SDD No. 24, Warner Development, was approved in 1990, the subject
property deviated from the underlying Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District
in regards to gross residential floor area (GRFA) and site coverage. As part of the approval it
was conditioned that the indoor pool area permanently be restricted to use as a pool. In 2004,
changes were made to the Vail Town Code with regard to the calculation of GRFA resulting in
the subject property now having an excess amount of allowable GRFA.
Chapin opened the public hearing with a reading of the title of Ordinance No. 20, Series of
2016. Matt Panfil, Planner, presented the application with a note about the changes from first
reading, as follows:
At the first reading, the Vail Town Council approved a condition of approval in order that all employee
housing units (EHUs) within the SDD (Lots 3, 4, and 5) be required to be leased and a deed
restriction agreement for the occupancy, rental and transfer of a Type III Employee Housing Unit, as
is currently defined by Vail Town Code, be submitted by each of the respective owners prior to the
effective date of the SDD Ordinance. In response, the applicant has indicated that the above
referenced condition of approval would result in the withdrawal of their application. Instead, the
applicant offers to accept the condition of approval to submit an updated deed restriction agreement
for the occupancy, rental and transfer of a Type III Employee Housing Unit, as is currently defined by
Vail Town Code, for Lot 4, but not Lots 3 and 5. The Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) has
submitted a letter in support of the applicant's proposal and has suggested an updated condition of
approval.
He also spoke about the review made by the Vail Local Housing Authority and basis for their
recommendation for a condition to an approval. There were several reasons identified for the
basis of the recommendation by VLHA —
1 . Under the Town Council's previously approved condition of approval, it is unlikely that any of
the three (3) EHU deed restrictions will be updated. The result could be a lose-lose scenario
in which the units are never occupied by local employees;
2. The VLHA's suggested condition of approval ensures that at least one (1) of the three (3)
EHUs will be occupied and allows for the other two (2) EHUs to be updated at a later date;
and
3. Any EHU exchange is still subject to Town Council approval.
Staff also noted because the GRFA on Lots 3 and 5 are limited by the existing SDD language to
an amount below the underlying zoning district, there may be a future opportunity to update their
EHU deed restrictions. If the owners of Lots 3 and 5 want to use the GRFA allowed by the
underlying zone district, the Town Council may consider such a request in exchange for
updating their EHU deed restrictions. Chapin asked if the applicant wanted to present their
position on the application; the applicant was not present. It was noted by Panfil that the
applicant preferred to withdraw their request and preferred to only update Lot 4 and not Lots 3
and 5. There was discussion about requiring upfront the Type III EHU for all three lots.
Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2016 - Second Reading, An Ordinance
Repealing and Reenacting Ordinance No. 11, Series 1990, Establishing Special Development
District No. 24, Warner Development, Pursuant to Article A, Special Development (SDD)
District, Chapter 9, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code and Setting Forth Details in
Regard Thereto, and additionally, two deed restriction agreements for the occupancy, rental and
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 24 of 14
transfer of a Type III Employee Housing Unit, as is defined on the effective date of this
ordinance and located within the Town of Vail, shall be submitted by the owner to the Town of
Vail and said agreements shall be reviewed, approved and recorded prior to the effective date
of this ordinance." Cleveland seconded the motion. Both Foley and Mason expressed
concerns about the applicant not being present. The motion passed 4 to 2; (Bruno, Chapin,
Cleveland, Moffet, — yes; Foley and Mason — no).
There being no further business to come before the council, Moffet moved to adjourn the
meeting and Foley seconded the motion which passed (6-0) and the meeting adjourned at
6:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Attest:
Dave Chapin, Mayor
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016 Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 25 of 14
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Public Access Television Update -Channel 5 gets new name, High Five Access
Media, and website
PRESENTER(S): Jake Wolf, Board Member, J.K. Perry, Executive Director, Channel 5 Public
Access Community TV (new name: High Five Access Media)
BACKGROUND: Public Access TV5 is now High Five Access Media. The nonprofit has re-
created itself with a new name, logo and website, www.highfivemedia.org, to show the community
the creative opportunities at local access media.
October 4, 2016 - Page 26 of 14
TOWN OF VAR'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution Supporting Eagle County Ballot Issue 1A (Affordable Workforce
Housing)
PRESENTER(S): Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Support of Ballot Issue 1Awith adoption of Resolution.
BACKGROUND: A "YES" vote on Issue 1A ensures our community can remain competitive to
keep locals local, creating a funding source much like other resort communities including Summit
County, Pitkin County, and Teton County, and addresses housing accessibility throughout Eagle
County through a variety of affordable housing programs including down payment assistance and
public-private partnerships. See attached possible uses of funds and FAA's, or visit
http://voteyeson1 a.com for more details.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution and Materials for Eagle County Ballot Issue 1A
October 4, 2016 - Page 27 of 14
AA"
MERVaLLEV
PAgTJ7Ei ffFOd0-
2016
of the Year
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF BALLOT ISSUE IA: AFFORDABLE
WORKFORCE HOUSING
Resolved:
WHEREAS 69% of the business community in the Vail Valley Partnership's
annual Workforce Study has recognized affordable workforce housing as a
significant and major problem;
WHEREAS the TOWN/DISTRICT recognizes the need for a regional approach to
addressing affordable workforce housing;
WHEREAS the TOWN/DISTRICT has determined that it is in the best interest of
the community to address affordable workforce housing;
WHEREAS issue IA addresses affordable workforce housing in Eagle County
through an `all of the above' approach including:
• PROVIDING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY, AVAILABILITY, AND
AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING IN EAGLE COUNTY
• PROVIDING DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE LOANS FOR HOME
OWNERSHIP
• ACQUIRING LAND FOR FUTURE HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE TO THE
WORKFORCE
• INVESTING IN PRIVATE/PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE PROVISION
OF WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• RELATED HOUSING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the TOWN/DISTRICT offers their
public support for Ballot Issue IA
PO Box 1130, Vail, CO 81658
Vai1ValleyPortnership.com / Visit VoilValley. com / VoilValleyMeanseusiness.com / VoilonSole.com
October 4, 2016 - Page 28 of 14
Eagle County Housing — Possible Uses of Affordable Housing Tax Funds
Why do we need affordable housing?
• Eagle County has a significant housing problem. We need 4,466
housing units today and will need a total of 11,960 by 2025 to house
our workforce.
• 50% of homeowners and 46% of renters pay too much towards their
mortgages and rent.
• People move out of Eagle County when they reach their early 30's
and don't stop leaving until their early 60's. We are losing people in
their peak earning years. Many attribute this, in part, to a lack of
housing affordable to these employees. Losing employees costs
local businesses a lot of money.
• Shelter is a basic need. The success of families, children in school,
and employees is greatly improved when they have a safe, warm
place to call home.
What is needed to help reduce the problem?
Possible Uses of Housing Tax Funds
Z
2%
26%
■ New Construction of Deed
Restricted Housing for Owners
■ New Construction of Deed
Restricted Housing for Renters
Better Utilize Current Stock of
Developed Real Estate
■ Down Payment Assistance
Loans
Education
How can we make it happen?
New Construction of Deed Restricted Housing for Owners
• Increase the availability of deed restricted ownership housing in the
community (example of Miller Ranch)
• Partner with private and other public entities
• Strategic land acquisition — in locations where workforce housing
development is appropriate based upon proximity to jobs and
transportation as well as community desires
• Create incentives for developers to build affordable units
New Construction of Deed Restricted Housing for Renters
• Increase the availability of deed restricted rental housing in the
community (example of Lake Creek Village Apartments)
• Long term leases to workforce, seniors, and special needs
populations
• Partner with private and other public entities
• Strategic land acquisition — in locations where workforce housing
development is appropriate based upon proximity to jobs and
transportation as well as community desires
• Create incentives for developers to build affordable units
Better Utilize Current Stock of Developed Real Estate
• Improve the quality and affordability of housing in Eagle County
• Acknowledging that land in Eagle County is limited, acquire and
renovate existing properties to be converted into workforce housing
• Purchase deed restrictions for existing properties
• Unit buy -downs to keep units affordable to employees within the
county
• Preservation of existing deed restrictions
• Short term rental buy -backs
Down Payment Assistance Loans
• Leverage dollars to make housing purchases and monthly payments
more affordable to our workforce
• Work with real estate agents and lenders to ensure widespread
knowledge and usage of program
Education
• Home buyer education
• Renter and homeowner education
• Education of lenders, appraisers, real estate agents and others
regarding housing programs
• Credit counseling and foreclosure prevention counseling
October 4, 2016 - Page 29 of 149
Vote Yes on 1A: Keep Locals Local
Vote "YES" on IA: Keep locals ... local
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)
Issue IA outlines a multi -pronged strategy to the creation of new affordable homes in towns and
communities throughout Eagle County. Passage of Issue IA will help keep locals local by
allowing individuals and families in stay in Eagle County through improved access to housing.
Q: Why do we need a funding source for affordable workforce housing?
A: We have a significant housing problem. We need 4.500 housing units today and will need
a total of 12,000 by 2025 to house our workforce. (source: Eagle County Housing
Assessment). As housing prices increase far faster than area wages, our resort brands create
an international demand for limited housing stock, and high land prices make free-market
development of affordable units financially unviable to developers.
Q: What is the definition of affordable housing and whom will it serve?
A. Housing is considered affordable to a household if it costs no more than 30% of a
household's income. Household income is typically shown as a percentage of the Area
Median Income (AMI). At 100% of AMI, our current affordability gap is $234,310; even at
140% of AMI, our affordability gap is $97,600. As a result, affordable housing will serve a
large portion of our working class population.
Q: How much will this cost? How much will it raise?
A: IA is asking for approval for a 3/10 sales tax — that's $0.03 sales tax on every $10
purchase (exempting groceries). It is estimated to raise $5,400,000 per year to help address
our housing issues.
Q: Who will this benefit?
A: We are all touched by Eagle County's affordable workforce housing crisis. Affordable
workforce housing benefits the entire community. Businesses benefit through increased
employee retention and recruiting. Employees benefit through more affordable living
situations. Individuals benefit through home ownership tax credits. Communities benefit
through the creation of year-round residents and the ability to have police, fire fighters,
teachers, nurses, and other professionals live closer to work.
Q: Why is this a problem now?
A: Housing costs threaten our business community. In fact, 69% of business operators
indicate that the housing situation negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain
employees and this issue is mentioned frequently when asked about additional resources that
are needed. (Source: 2016 Eagle County Workforce Study). There is a point at which our
Paid for by Vail Valley Partnership, VailValleyPartnership.com
October 4, 2016 - Page 30 of 14
Vote Yes on 1A: Keep Locals Local
businesses will be unable to expand because they will not be able to fill the jobs needed to
grow. There is a cost to not building workforce housing.
Q: How will this money be used?
A: There's no silver bullet solution to our housing crisis; as a result, I will allow for a
variety of uses including new construction of deed restricted housing for owners (i.e., Miller
Ranch), deed restricted housing housing for renters, down payment assistance programs,
public-private partnerships with developers, unit buy -downs and adding deed restrictions to
existing properties, land banking, and more. We need to find any tool we can use to put more
units into the long-term housing pool.
Q: What are current vacancy rates?
A: Apartment vacancy rates are near zero (source: Polar Star Properties) and the affordability
gap on free-market homes exceeds $234,000 for a standard family at 100% of the area
median income (Eagle County Housing Assessment).
Q: How do our current taxes compare to the national average?
A: IA would increase our sales tax by 0.03% (three cents on ten dollars, exempting
groceries). Five states do not have statewide sales tax. The lowest non -zero state -level sales
tax is in Colorado, at 2.9%. All other states have higher state sales taxes. Combining state
and local taxes, Colorado's average sales tax is 7.5%, ranking 16th in the nation. Eagle
County's average sales tax is lower (and will remain lower with the passage of IA) than
other mountain resort communities including Grand, Gunnison, and Pitkin and is slightly
higher than Summit and Route County.
Q: Won't this just increase our cost of living, increasing the cost to live in Eagle
County?
A: A sales tax of three cents on every ten dollars is estimated to cost the average family
approximately $150 per year ($35-50 per person) and exempts grocery sales. Of course,
much of our sales tax is collected from visitors and second homeowners. Local wages have
increased, but not at the same level as real estate appreciation, leading to increased
affordability gap in home prices. IA creates an opportunity to keep locals local, and create
more workforce to fill local jobs.
Q: Who is in charge of the funds?
A: As a county -wide sales tax, the ultimate authority for use of the funds lies with the elected
Board of County Commissioners. This is similar to the Eco-Transit/Eco-Trails and Open
Space funding models, both of which utilize a citizen advisory board to provide guidance and
feedback to the elected officials.
Paid for by Vail Valley Partnership, VailValleyPartnership.com
October 4, 2016 - Page 31 of 14
Vote Yes on 1A: Keep Locals Local
Q: What are other resort communities doing?
A: A lot! Aspen, Boulder, Mountain Village, Summit County, and Telluride all have sales
taxes in place for affordable workforce housing. Boulder also has a property tax and
development excise. Aspen also has a real estate transfer tax, and numerous counties and
cities have additional housing impact fees.
Paid for by Vail Valley Partnership, VailValleyPartnership.com
October 4, 2016 - Page 32 of 14
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: The Homestake Condos HOA is requesting permission to proceed through the
development review process for a trash/recycle enclosure to be located in town -owned right-of-
way.
PRESENTER(S): Brian Garner, Planner
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve as requested; Approve with modifications; or
deny the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Town Council deny the applicant's request to
proceed through the development review process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Memo
October 4, 2016 - Page 33 of 14
TOWS! OF
Memorandum
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Trash & Recycle Enclosure in Town Right -Of -Way at 1136 Sandstone Drive,
Permission to Proceed
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Homestake at Vail Condominium Association ("Homestake Condos"), located at
1136 Sandstone Drive, requests permission to proceed through the development
review process in order to construct a trash & recycle enclosure within Town of Vail
right-of-way and, if approved, enter into a revocable license and lease agreement with
the Town of Vail for a structure on town property.
The Vail Town Council is not being asked to approve the trash & recycle enclosure,
its location or design, but rather to authorize the applicant to move forward with a
planning application that utilizes town -owned property for private use, as the
Sandstone Drive right-of-way is town owned property.
II. BACKGROUND
The Homestake condos are located in the Medium Density Multi Family (MDMF)
Zone District and contain a total of sixty-six (66) units between buildings A and B. The
property contains two street frontages with Building `A' adjacent to Sandstone Drive
on the north, and Building `B' adjacent to Vail View Drive to the south. There currently
is a steel trash dumpster located on the site where the applicant is requesting to
construct a more permanent enclosure on approximately 200 square feet of area.
Because of steep topography, dense vegetation and building siting, the applicant is
proposing the trash & recycle enclosure be located where the dumpster has been
historically, along the Sandstone Drive right-of-way. This location provides the best
accessibility to haul -away service vehicles with the least conflict to vehicular
circulation in the vicinity.
The Vail Town Code requires that garbage storage be screened from adjacent
properties, structures, streets, and other public areas by fences, berms, or
landscaping. Additionally, Section 5-2-4 Refuse Storage, of the Vail Town Code
October 4, 2016 - Page 34 of 14
requires:
All refuse, except rubble and recyclable materials, shall be stored either in
"refuse containers", as defined in Section 5-2-1 of this Chapter, or in "refuse
storage rooms", as defined in Section 5-2-1 of this Chapter, at a designated
place on the premises, either inside or outside, easily accessible to refuse
haulers within the Town, and shall be properly concealed so as to not degrade
the architectural and landscaping qualities of the premises. Concealment
facilities shall be approved by the Department of Community Development.
The requested location for a trash & recycling enclosure on Sandstone Drive near the
entrance to the Homestake Condos is located within Town right-of-way, south of the
existing asphalt travel surface. The proposed trash & recycling enclosure site is
currently unimproved and consists of grass and rocks. Please refer to the attached
site photos. The project is anticipated to be reviewed by the Design Review Board in
the near future, if granted permission to proceed by Council.
III. DISCUSSION
Rights-of-way are areas of land that have been dedicated to the Town for public use for
the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining public facilities such as roads,
sidewalks, bike paths, utilities, snow storage, surface drainage, and other public
infrastructure. Council recently approved a request by the Solar Crest Association to
allow a trash enclosure initially constructed without permits or permission to remain in
the Lions Ridge Loop right-of-way. Public Works is concerned with structures in the
right-of-way, and points out that the Town of Vail has a long standing policy of
prohibiting private structures within the right-of-way.
The Community Development Department requests that the Town Council evaluate the
proposal to utilize Town of Vail right-of-way for the purpose of constructing a trash &
recycling enclosure for the private use by the Homestake Condos. This utilization of
Town of Vail property would be subject to the terms of a revocable right-of-way permit
and lease agreement and could be discontinued and ordered removed if necessary.
If approved by Town Council to proceed through the development review process, the
applicant will need to submit and obtain approval of a Design Review Board application.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council deny the applicant's request to proceed through
the development review process to allow the private use of town -owned right-of-way for
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 35 of 14
a trash & recycling structure at the Homestake Condos, located at 1136 Sandstone
Drive. Staff's recommendation is based upon the following:
1. The proposed private use of the town -owned land is in conflict with the purpose
and intended use associated with public rights-of-way.
2. An approval may establish a precedent that private trash & recycle structures can
be permitted within the right-of-way.
However, should Town Council approve the applicant's request to proceed through the
development review process, staff recommends a lease agreement with an appropriate
annual fee in addition to the revocable license agreement for use of the town owned
land.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's written request
B. Aerial view of Homestake Condos
C. Site plan (plat) of Homestake Condos
D. Site and vicinity photos
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 36 of 14
Mr. Mayor & Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Request to construct a trash and recycling enclosure in TOV Right -of -Way
Dear Mr. Mayor & Town Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of the Homestake at Vail Condominium Association located on
Sandstone Drive in regards to our desire to construct a trash and recycling enclosure for
our condominium complex.
Our condominium complex was built in 1973 as a condo -hotel with condo -hotel units a
hotel check-in and a restaurant. When it was constructed the property was located in
Eagle County and was subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail.
We are requesting Town Council approval to work with Town Staff and Town Review
Boards to construct a trash and recycling enclosure in the Town of Vail Right of Way on
Sandstone Drive where our current trash dumpster is located. Our current trash -only
dumpster is located in the Town right of way and has been there since the complex was
built approximately 43 years ago.
Due to the way the property was developed there is no room on our property to
construct an enclosure. Additionally, due to the steep nature of access to the site and
tight turnarounds within the existing parking areas trash trucks are unable to access our
site. We have reviewed all possible locations for a trash and recycling enclosure and
where the trash is currently located is the best option.
We will work with the Design Review Board and Town Staff to ensure the structure and
materials are compliant with all Town ordinances and zoning requirements.
Thank you for taking the time to review this request. We look forward to working with the
Town Council and Staff.
Regards,
Travis Coggin
Homestake at Vail Condominium Association, Board Member
October 4, 2016 - Page 37 of 14
CUR RENT
TRASH �
EU M PSTER
f
qr
F F
, 1 X61
1061 PO
i .i�s
HOMESTAKE AT VAIL
CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX
116
1061 �
1063 -063
1063 1063
- i
1003 .
,103�J
1 1003 -
1063
106 3- r
1063�
10 6."
1 06.1063 7
*14
w6
r
1061
10' 0
10 Q 10C
' 10i 1C� 0
(Iei I r).
October 4, 2016 - Page 38 of 149
6-1
IJ
4
1�7/
. C�
OP
��.
vF o
do
N \
to #.p \
G. C.E.
Garage Wall G�/ L_ 1
FyS
\ F�
LOT A-6 NORTH
BLOCK 'A
I ' O h OQ ^cy
72 4p- ''
0
gyp. N 9,
Sp sp.
qo
O• O-
F'9S \ `y
F,y
F `
'L/ ,\
\
F
F
SCALE' 1'=20"
0 5 10 15 In 30 40_ 50 `
NOTES: \
• PIN FOUND
ELEVATIONS BASED ON U.S.G.S. DATUM. \
SEE SHEET 5-7 `
DASHED LINES SHOW FOUNDATION BELOW �_ j � h-/ \
GROUND LEVEL
(s) TYPICAL SLAB (5.0x11.5') \
AREA MAP \
SE 1/4,
yT''
Sec. 1,
SCALE: 1`:$00 T5S 1�v' COY,,O
'ref, (y
N^/ / "
LION'S RIDGE SJUBDIVISION
N 1/
T5
S12,
/2 7
/1 VAIL VILLAGE
a
f RW LAND SURVEY CO-
1W
�— s FRISCO, COLORADO
0
-1 �1•, \
40' O
� P� a0• �
CONDOM11MIUM,
MAP FOR
THE HOMESTAKE AT VAIL A
(A CONDOMINIUM
DESCRIPTION OF LOT
LOT A-6 NORTH, PART OF LOT 4-6 BLOCK 194", LION'S RICI^E SUBDIVISION, EA(LE ''"!114TY. :DLIRAOO,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNEA OF SAID LOT 4-6 WHICH IS THE TmUE POINT Kr�INN14r,,
THENCE N45'22154"E, 193,48 FEET TO A POINT OF CUOVATUOE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 3!.53 FEET ALON`'
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE 0113147, SAI[ CUOVE HAVIN^ A QADIUS OF 4056.93 CECT, AN IVTE"I1D 4N^LE
OF 0026143" AND A CHORD BEARIW', 445036116"E, 31,53 FEET; THENCE S44°37"06"E, 135.QF FEET; THENCE
S45014113"W, 225,01 FEET; THENCE N44037106"W, 136,59 BEET TO THE T0j1E DOINT Oc* BE''INNINn.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
THIS MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED c00 THE pUQPnSE STATED IN THE DECLA'ATin' r^" THE
HOW -STAKE AT VA I L A, A CONDOMI V 11110 F I LED3/30/73RECE0T I ON Vn. /�? 5�o't 8 ANr' DEr'nPr)E!' IN
WOK 2AS AT PAr:E'S 43 I 70=mmki OF THE EA( -LE COUNTY, 7)L'1RA-1 DEC-r)"S.
THE UNDERSIGNED, A REnISTERED LANE SURVEY14 IN THE STATE 0- COLnOq"'). HE°EBY CEOTIrIES
(1) THAT THE CONDOMINIUM "+AP SUBSTANTIALLY DEPli-TS 00 ')ESCPIL3ES THE '_ICATIO.,l V4J) THE H'1I1"ONTAL
AND VERTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE DESCQIBED LOT 4Nr Or THE U'JITS THE!?E. THE UNIT
DESIGNATIONS, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITS, THE ELEVATIONS OF THE UNITS, THE ELEVATIONS Or THE
UNFINISHED FLOORS AND CEILINGS AS CONSTRUCTED AND THE BUILDIN^ NAME; (2) THAT SUCH "SAP WAS
PREPARED SUBSEQUENT TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION Or THE IMPROVE"ENTS; (3) THAT TIES APE AS SHOWN;
. AND (4) THAT THE MONUMENTS AS SHOWN APE SUFFICIENT T7 ENABL•E'AN % RVEY OF THIS PROPEOTY,
� Ab-TERt-� Thi'
C
, 1973 a, B. WELLIN^-Tn 0. L.c n. (Original signature destroyed)
MARCH 9
�� l �SURV O
OF CO����
EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERIS CEPTIrICATE
THIS MAP WAS FILED apcA 1973, AS 0FCEDTI1N NO.
SHEET 1 of 3
CLERK AN R COP'�EQ �±
12- 224
October 4, 2016 - Page 39 of 149
IVO
South side of Homestake along Vail Valley Drive
Existing Trash Location
Sandstone Drive — Homestake Entrance
North side of Homestake along Sandstone Drive
Sandstone Drive Frontage — Looking West
Sandstone Drive Frontage — Looking East
October 4, 2016 - Page 40 of 14
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016, First Reading, Gross Residential Floor Area, an
ordinance for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail
Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code
concerning the method for measuring Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within the hillside
residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), two-family
primary/secondary residential (PS), residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF),
medium density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
BACKGROUND:
This is a proposal to clarify the existing policy on Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) by
modifying the text of Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code,
relating to how Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is calculated in the following zone districts:
hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), two-family
primary/secondary residential (PS), residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF),
medium density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail
Village Townhouse (VVT) districts.
The proposed ordinance would clarify that the lowest level of a structure is the floor area with the
lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including any floor areas within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level.
Only the below grade portions of these floor areas would be eligible for the GRFA basement
deduction. This is a clarification of an existing policy and existing code language; it is not an
application to amend the regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the
Vail Town Council approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Memo - Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
PEC Memo on GRFA - August 22, 2016
PEC Results on GRFA - August 22, 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 41 of 14
October 4, 2016 - Page 42 of
0
rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 4, 2016
SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016, an ordinance for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail
Town Code concerning the method for measuring Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-
family residential (R), two-family primary/secondary residential (PS), residential
cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium density multiple -family
(MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail Village
Townhouse (VVT) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-
0024).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
SUMMARY
This is a proposal to clarify the existing policy on Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
by modifying the text of Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail
Town Code, relating to how Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is calculated in the
following zone districts: hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-
family residential (R), two-family primary/secondary residential (PS), residential cluster
(RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium density multiple -family (MDMF), high
density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H) and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) districts.
The proposed ordinance would clarify that the lowest level of a structure is the floor area
with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including any floor areas within six (6) vertical feet of
the lowest level. Only the below grade portions of these floor areas would be eligible for
the GRFA basement deduction. This is a clarification of an existing policy and existing
code language; it is not an application to amend the regulations. If the Town Council
desires to amend the regulations, a new and different application and ordinance will be
required.
October 4, 2016 - Page 43 of 14
II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On August 22, 2016, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted 4-3 to
recommend that the Vail Town Council approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016. This
recommendation was based upon review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of the
August 22, 2016 memorandum to the PEC, and the evidence and testimony presented.
Please see the PEC meeting results from August 22, 2016 (Attachment C) for additional
detail.
III. BACKGROUND
During the PEC meeting of May 23, 2016, the Commission held a public hearing and
overturned an administrative decision on an appeal (TC16-0004) concerning the
exclusion of GRFA within a basement under each dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling
(duplex) in the Primary/Secondary zone district. The PEC determined that staff
incorrectly interpreted the Town Code relating to the GRFA exclusion on the lowest level
in a two-family dwelling. The PEC determined that each dwelling unit in a two-family
dwelling is its own structure, and each structure is allowed its own GRFA basement
deduction on the lowest level. As a result of this decision, the Town Code needs to be
clarified concerning the deduction of floor areas from the GRFA calculation for areas of
the lowest level that are below grade.
On June 7, 2016 the Town Council reviewed the minutes of the PEC meeting of May 23,
2016. The Council did not call-up the PEC decision. The Council wanted to allow the
PEC and staff time to work through the issues raised during the appeal.
On June 27, 2016 the PEC began formal review of this text amendment application. The
PEC also reviewed this item during their meetings on August 8, 2016 and August 22,
2016. On August 22, 2016 the PEC voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the proposed
text amendments.
On September 20, 2016 the Community Development Department gave a presentation
on GRFA to Town Council during a work session. No formal action or vote was taken at
that time.
IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Section 12-15-3A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows with new
language in bold, language proposed to be removed designated by a strikethro iivh:
1 a (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 44 of 14
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
Section 12-15-313 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
1 a (7) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
The intent of the basement GRFA deduction is to exclude portions of the lowest level of
a structure that are below grade and do not add to the bulk or mass of a building. Only
areas on the lowest level of the structure (not all below grade levels) are eligible for this
exclusion, as determined by Town Council in 2004. During the recent review of this
proposal by the PEC, staff identified a number of options for addressing the issues
raised during the appeal of May 23, 2016. After considerable study by the Community
Development Department and discussions by the PEC, it was determined that some of
the options proposed at the time would have resulted in a change in policy, not just a
clarification of the existing code. Since the goal of this ordinance is to clarify the existing
language and not to amend the policy, these options were not pursued. Also, some of
the changes considered would have created nonconformities for existing developments,
and thus were not pursued.
The PEC ultimately voted to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance. The
proposed changes will codify a practice that has been used by staff and the
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 45 of 14
development community for about ten (10) years by allowing a step of up to six (6) feet
on the lowest level of a structure.
It is important to note that the proposed code language regarding the six (6) foot step
does not change the PEC determination specific to one structure vs. two structures. The
Town Attorney has advised that if the intent is to continue to treat a duplex or other
multi -unit structure as one structure, then the code should be modified to clearly state
this intent. Such a code amendment would then negate the PEC's appeal decision for
future applications. However, any code change would only affect future Design Review
Board applications; applications submitted after the PEC appeal decision, but prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, would be reviewed as individual structures per
dwelling unit as determined by the PEC on May 23, 2016.
If the Town Council chooses to modify the proposed ordinance, staff suggests doing so
at first reading with the addition of a sentence that reads: "A multi -unit building shall
be considered one structure."
During the work session on September 20, 2016, some Council members expressed
concern about treating a two-family dwelling as one structure, due to potential inequities
for structures built on sloped sites. While this policy can be changed by Town Council,
such change is not included in this ordinance, and any such change would require a
separate application. Also, reviewing each side of a duplex as a separate structure
could result in greater GRFA deductions on the lower levels, and an increase in the
overall size of homes constructed. Before any policy change of this magnitude is
adopted, the Community Development Department recommends additional research to
understand the impacts on the community.
VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
upon first reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the
Council passes the following motion:
"The Vail Town Council approves, on first reading, Ordinance No. 16
Series of 2016, an ordinance for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend
Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code
concerning the method for measuring Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA) within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR),
two-family residential (R), two-family primary/secondary residential (PS),
residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium
density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF),
housing (H) and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) districts, and setting forth
details in regard thereto and setting forth details in regard thereto. "
Should the Town Council choose to modify the proposed ordinance to clarify that ""A
multi -unit building shall be considered one structure" the Community Development
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 46 of 14
Department suggests that this change be incorporated into any motion to approve. The
addition of this sentence would help to clarify the existing policy.
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016 on
first reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Council
makes the following findings:
""Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 22,
2016 and the evidence and testimony presented and the evidence and testimony
presented, the Vail Town Council finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town
Code; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality. "
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
B. PEC Memorandum, dated August 22, 2016
C. PEC meeting results of August 22, 2016
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 47 of 14
ORDINANCE NO. 16
SERIES 2016
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-15-3, DEFINITION, CALCULATION
AND EXCLUSIONS OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE, REGARDING THE METHOD
FOR MEASURING GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) IN THE
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR), SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SFR), TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R), TWO-FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY (PS), LOW
DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY (LDMF), MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY
(MDMF), HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY (HDMF), HOUSING (H), AND
VAIL VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE (WT) DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town"),
is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of
Colorado and the Vail Town Charter;
WHEREAS, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, of the Vail Town
Code explains the methods used to determine how gross residential floor area is measured
within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R),
two-family primary/secondary residential (PS), residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -
family (LDMF), medium density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF),
housing (H) and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) districts;
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend Section 12-15-3 to clarify that for the
purposes of measuring gross residential floor area the lowest level shall be the finished floor
level with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the
lowest level;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held
public hearings on the proposed prescribed regulations amendment and on August 22, 2016
submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with
the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment furthers the general and
specific purposes of the zoning regulations;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment promotes the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and
its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
(Note: Language proposed to be added is shown in bold; language proposed to be
removed is shown in str ethr-e gh )
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 48 of 14
Section 1. Section 12-15-3A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
1 a (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
Section 2. Section 12-15-313 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows:
1 a (7) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 49 of 14
Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this
ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of
any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4t" day of October, 2016,
and a public hearing and second reading of this Ordinance set for the 18th day of October 2016,
at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 50 of 14
0) rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 22, 2016
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail
Town Code concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
SUMMARY
This is a proposal to clarify the text of Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and
Exclusions, Vail Town Code, relating to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is
calculated in basements in the following zone districts: Hillside Residential (HR), Single -
Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), and Two -Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -
Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family
(HDMF), Housing (H), and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum
and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulations
Amendment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This is a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to clarify Section 12-
15-3 of the Vail Town Code concerning gross residential floor area (GRFA) and the
allowable basement deduction. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the Town
Code in response to a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission
concerning an appeal of an administrative determination. This amendment will codify
the GRFA basement deductions that have been implemented by staff and many
members of the development community.
October 4, 2016 - Page 51 of 14
The proposed changes do not include the treatment of dwelling units in a two-family
dwelling as separate structures. The Community Development Department has studied
the impacts that such a change would have on the community, and does not
recommend treatment as separate structures for a number of significant reasons
previously discussed and mentioned later in this memorandum.
As currently written, the Vail Town Code states that:
(6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction
calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall
surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the
underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the
purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered
part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal
areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units
also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction
does not apply to any crawl space or attic.
To rectify the existing ambiguity, the following new sentence is proposed to be added to
this section of the code:
"The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest U.S.G.S.
elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level."
The proposed code amendment would apply to properties in the Hillside Residential
(HR), Single-family Residential (SFR), Two-family Residential (R), and Two-family
Primary Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -
Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family
(HDMF), Housing (H), and Vail Village townhouse (VVT) districts.
III. BACKGROUND
During the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting of May 23, 2016,
the Commission overturned an administrative decision on an appeal (TC16-0004)
concerning the exclusion of GRFA within a basement under each dwelling unit in the
Primary/Secondary zone district. The Commission determined that staff incorrectly
interpreted the Town Code relating to the GRFA exclusion on the lowest levels in a two-
family dwelling. The PEC determined that for the purposes of calculating GRFA, each
dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling is considered a separate structure, and each
structure has its own lowest level, and thereby may qualify for its respective GRFA
lowest level exclusion.
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 52 of 14
On June 7, 2016 the Town Council reviewed the minutes of the PEC meeting of May 23,
2016. The Council did not call-up the PEC decision, but some Council members
expressed concern with making significant changes to the GRFA policy. The Council
wanted to allow the PEC and staff time to work through the issues raised during the
appeal.
On June 13, 2016, the PEC reviewed a number of options for clarifying the code. The
PEC directed staff to move forward with the proposed code amendment, listed as Option
#1 in the staff memo of June 13, 2016. As a work session, there was not a formal motion
or vote.
• Option #1 (from June 13, 2016 meeting) included adding the following sentence to
the existing code: "For the purposes of basement GRFA exclusions only,
each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure, and each
structure shall have its own lowest level." No other changes were proposed at
the time.
On June 27, 2016 the PEC began formal review of this application. The Commission
supported measuring each unit in a duplex separately. The Commission had mixed
reactions to measuring the grade at a party wall compared to the entire perimeter of the
duplex structure. Some Commissioners also supported allowing a step in the lowest
level, based on past interpretations of the Town Code, which is not currently codified.
During the PEC/DRB update on August 2, 2016, some members of the Town Council
reiterated concerns over making significant changes to the Town Code related to GRFA.
On August 8, 2016 the PEC expressed concerns with the proposals presented by staff
and the potential impacts of the proposed changes. Some members of the PEC
indicated that the 6' step was an arbitrary number that may not work in some duplex
situations.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
Section 3-7 Amendment (in part)
A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the
zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by
the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
B. Initiation:
1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 53 of 14
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for
a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners
of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and
the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all
owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the
property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed
envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The
petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the
administrator.
V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The only proposed change is the codification of the six (6) foot step.
This proposal is intended to address the issue of different finished floor levels within a
structure but otherwise does not make significant changes to GRFA. It is evident from
staff's research and from PEC comments over the past several meetings on this topic
that previous code changes would have made the GRFA policy overly complicated and
could have created undesirable consequences for some property owners. In an effort to
keep the proposed code change in line with a clarification and not a policy change, the
Community Development Department recommends that limited aspects of the GRFA
regulations be addressed at this time. Should further changes to the policy be needed
in the future, and if such changes are supported by the Town Council, staff can return to
the PEC at that time.
(New code language is shown in bold. Language proposed for removal is shown
in strikethre g )
Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions:
A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family
residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts:
1 a (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 54 of 14
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
B. Within the residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium
density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H), and
Vail Village townhouse (VVT) districts:
1 a (7) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
The goal of the proposed text amendment is to ensure equity, consistency, simplicity,
and to eliminate or reduce the creation of nonconformities for existing structures. The
proposed changes help to best achieve these goals.
As staff continues to research the issues relating to GRFA and measuring each unit as
a separate structure, more concerns and potential problems become evident. Many of
these issues stem from the treatment of a property as one development site for most
development standards, but measuring GRFA separately for the purposes of the
basement GRFA exclusion. As previously proposed, the standards were developed
based on the premise of one development site with one structure. This included
measurements for GRFA, setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, and other development
standards. Considering duplexes as separate structures can be problematic. For this
reason, staff does not recommend calculating GRFA for these dwelling units separately,
but accommodating a change in the finished floor elevation of the lowest levels of the
structure.
Allowing a step of up to six (6) feet within a structure, whether it is within a dwelling unit,
or between dwelling units, has been applied consistently for the past ten (10) years.
This number was based on approximately one-half story, or a floor to floor distance of
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 55 of 14
twelve(12)feet. Floors that are within six (6) feet of the lowest level were determined to
be on the same floor level. This method allows for structures to respond to site
topography, while still being close to the lowest level of the structure.
The proposed amendment would codify the six (6) foot step allowance. It would also
treat single family and duplex structures the same. The proposed method is easier to
understand than previous proposals and eliminates the need to measure the grade at
the party wall of each duplex structure. Additionally, because this method is more
consistent with the current code and measurement methodologies, it is less likely to
create nonconformities with existing properties. This proposal would not, however,
measure each side of a duplex as its own structure.
VII. CONCERNS
The proposed code amendment originated with the intent of clarifying that each dwelling
unit is considered its own structure for purposes of the GRFA basement exclusion.
1. The proposal is a not a policy change.
This proposal is not a policy change, but is rather an amendment to clarify the
measurement methods that staff has been using and which has been previously used
by many members of the development and design community.
2. Creation of nonconformities
The adoption of this amendment should not result in the creation of nonconformities on
existing developed properties. In addition, this amendment will not significantly change
the expectations of GRFA and development rights, as the amendment is consistent with
recent decisions.
3. Impacts on multi -family and townhome properties
The proposed change will not result in a deviation from the existing approach to GRFA
on multi -family and townhome style developments.
4. Measuring party walls
The proposal to allow a six (6) foot step does not require measuring the grade at a party
wall.
5. Multiple Lowest Levels
The proposed language does not deviate from the existing language, which only allows
the application of the GRFA basement deduction to the lowest level. The consideration
of multiple lowest levels for the GRFA basement deduction is inconsistent with the Town
Council's 2004 decision.
Town of Vail Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 56 of 14
6. Conversion to Single -Family
This proposal continues to respect the intent of the GRFA regulations by treating duplex
and single-family structures the same. As a result, property conversions would be
unaffected. A six (6) foot step is consistent with current measurement methods, and
helps to treat a structure the same whether it contains one or more dwelling units. This
ensures that the intent of GRFA, which includes the regulation of bulk and mass, is
respected.
VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning
and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a
change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following:
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations by allowing a six (6) foot step within a structure, which allows more flexibility
in design. This text amendment will codify the actual practice of the design community
and staff, which has been in place for several years, and helps to improve the clarity of
the code. This text amendment meets the following purposes of the zoning regulations:
12-1-2 A
General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and
enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of high quality.
12-1-2 B
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic
values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
Town of Vail Page 7
October 4, 2016 - Page 57 of 14
The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the
town. This change will establish clear and consistent language in the Vail Town Code.
Following are some of the relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan:
• Goal #1: Vail will continue to manage growth, maintaining a balance between
the bulk and mass of residential, commercial and recreational uses to ensure
the quality, character, diversity and vitality of the town by ensuring that all
regulatory and advisory land use documents are updated and current,
providing ease of compliance and enforcement, and uniformity among
regulatory and advisory documents.
• Goal #3: Ensure fairness and consistency in the development review
process.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
The amendment is in response to a lack of clarity within existing regulations. As a
matter of practice, staff and the development community have been allowing a six (6)
foot step at the lowest level. The proposed text amendment will codify this practice.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
The proposed text amendment provides clear terminology within the Vail Town Code so
that regulations are consistent with municipal development objectives.
As a result, staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VIII of this
memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment to Section 12-15-3: Definition,
Calculation, and Exclusions.
Town of Vail Page 8
October 4, 2016 - Page 58 of 14
If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the
proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendments to
Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code relating
to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is calculated in relation to basements
and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024)."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed
Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the
Community Development Department memorandum dated August 22, 2016, and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Town of Vail Page 9
October 4, 2016 - Page 59 of 14
TOWN OF VA10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 22, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz, John
Ryan Lockman, Kirk Hansen and Brian Stockmar
Absent: None
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to
amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code
concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth
details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 4-3-0 (Gillette,
Stockmar and Hansen opposed)
Planning Manager Chris Neubecker provided a summary of the application.
Discussion:
Chairman Rediker provided opening remarks and opened questions of staff.
Rediker opened the public hearing.
Mike Suman commented and believes the code language should make a distinction
between units, rather than a duplex as one structure.
Rollie Kjesbo commented and believes the lowest level language currently proposed is
what was always intended. Believes unit separation is important to consider too.
Closed public hearing.
October 4, 2016 - Page 60 of 14
Stockmar — Approximately how many homes out of 100 homes built in Vail encounter
this problem, and would be separated by more than 6 feet?
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence — Possibly as high as 20%, but more commonly 5-10%,
depending on the location in town.
Stockmar — Feels choosing six foot separation allowance is arbitrary and is inclined to
not change anything with GRFA at this time. Would like to have a bigger discussion
dealing with all of GRFA.
Spence — Clarified the intended process with Town Council as a result of today's PEC
recommendation.
Gillette — Likes the application being applied to all zone districts impacted by GRFA.
However, six foot rule is arbitrary. Believes all levels that are subterranean should be
deducted from GRFA.
Neubecker — A larger GRFA deduction on multiple levels of a home was originally
considered and discussed by Town Council when GRFA was amended in 2004, and not
supported by Council at that time.
Hansen — What was rationale when Council made determination?
Neubecker — Unsure due to 2004 occurrence and Town Council ordinance.
Gillette — That's why there are term limits and things change. Steep lots are being built -
out and this affects more applications now than years ago.
Pratt — Does not think this application solves the bigger problem and it contradicts the
decision of the PEC on the Michael Suman application and appeal. Allows multiple
levels but is not equitable between units. Each side should get credit for their buried
space. Feels the six foot rule meets status quo being interpreted by staff, and will send
this application to Council.
Kurz — Feels the application should go to Council with a recommendation of approval.
Hansen — Agrees with Gillette that the application does not solve the problems and
does not see the rationale.
Lockman — Agrees with many statements but this issue needs to be part of a larger
conversation about GRFA. Feels the application does make sense to codify a known
and current practice.
Rediker — Difficult to address this problem. Does not think underground space should
always qualify for a deduction. Agree with staff observations to be careful with code
October 4, 2016 - Page 61 of 14
changes. Looking at application before the PEC today is to codify a known practice and
that is acceptable. Supports the staff proposal.
Kurz — GRFA has served its duty even with all its flaws. Makes motion to approve.
Rediker - Question for staff pertaining to motion language without specificity to the 6
foot language that is proposed.
Neubecker suggested an amendment to the motion to specifically reference proposed
code language on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo, which adds the sentence "The
lowest level shall be the level with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including all floor
levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level."
Motion amended by Kurz as recommended by planning staff, to include reference to the
proposed text amendment language on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo.
3. Approval of Minutes
August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0
4. Informational Update
Beavers and the Habitat They Create - Pete Wadden — To be heard at future meeting
Conservation Easements - Brian Garner
Garner gave general overview of conservation easements, their purpose, types of
easements, and benefits of easements. Conservation easements can be used to protect
environmental features of a site, and may provide tax benefits to the property owner.
Majority of conservation easements are granted to non-governmental organizations.
There are about 3,000 conservation easements in Colorado; 58 conservation
easements in Eagle County, many with Eagle Valley Land Trust. There are 5
conservation easements in Vail. Some easements allow public access, others do not.
Stockmar — Aware of a parcel that is a prime candidate for a conservation easement,
about 60% wetlands, basically unbuildable. Homeowners Association cannot agree on
what to do with the land, it's +/- 6 acres.
5. Adjournment
Action: Kurz
Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0
October 4, 2016 - Page 62 of 14
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the
site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community
Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to
change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and
Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for
additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-
hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
(TDD), for information.
Community Development Department
October 4, 2016 - Page 63 of 14
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016, First Reading, Regulation of Greenhouses and
Hoop Houses
PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence, Planner
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
BACKGROUND: It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for residents to
participate in growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory framework while
reducing the potential impact on neighboring properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the proposed
Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12, 2016 where a recommendation for
approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4-2 (Stockmar and Gillette opposed).
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Town Council Memorandum
Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016
Planning and Environmental Commission Staff Memorandum, 09-12-2016
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes, 09-12-2016
Community Development Memorandum concerning Greenhouses, presented to Vail Town Council on
August 2, 2016
PowerPoint Presentation, 10-04-2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 64 of 14
TOWN OF
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Memorandum
Vail Town Council
Community Development Department
Planning and Environmental Commission
October 4, 2016
First Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016. Amendments to Sections 12-
2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to the
regulation of greenhouses and hoop houses/cold frames. (PEC16-0032)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
I. SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to propose to the Vail Town Council a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review
Standards and Guidelines related to the proposed regulation of greenhouses and hoop
houses/cold frames. It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for
residents to participate in growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory
framework while reducing the potential impact on neighboring properties. The Vail Town
Code currently has a limited reference to greenhouses and no distinction between these
types of accessory structures and others such as playhouses, toolsheds or garages.
Because of a heightened interest in growing food for personal consumption, the
amendment has been proposed to:
Provide definitions for Greenhouses and Hoop Houses/Cold Frames
Provide minimal standards related to the design, placement and operation
of these accessory structures.
Afford the Design Review Board flexibility in reviewing the design and
materials of a proposed greenhouse, formerly required to be constructed
out of the same or similar materials as the primary structure.
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12, 2016 where a
recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4-2
(Stockmar and Gillette opposed).
October 4, 2016 - Page 65 of 14
II. BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department has experienced an increase in requests from
residents interested in utilizing accessory structures for food production in addition to an
increase in the number of concerns expressed by neighbors about non -permitted
accessory structures. In response, staff prepared and presented a summary of existing
Town of Vail regulations concerning these types of structures and a synopsis of other
communities' approaches. This memo, presented to the Vail Town Council on August 2,
2016, is included as Attachment C. Although no specific direction was offered by the
Town Council, staff felt that community interest coupled with a lack of regulations specific
to these types of structures warranted the proposed amendment.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The following amendments are proposed with new language in bold and items to be
removed designated by a strikethrough.
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
GREENHOUSE: An outdoor structure, heated or unheated, constructed primarily
of glass or other rigid translucent material, which is devoted to the protection or
cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
HOOP HOUSE/COLD FRAME: An unheated outdoor enclosure used for the
purpose of growing crops and/or for protecting seedlings and plants from cold
weather but not containing any mechanical or electrical systems or storage of
any items.
14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:
B. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main
structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components of
greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement.
14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS:
G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards:
1. All wall and roofing materials shall be constructed of rigid
construction and shall not include polyethylene or other similar
flexible films.
2. All non -translucent elements including framing and doors shall
be painted to be compatible with the site and surrounding
buildings.
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 66 of 14
3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00
P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 7 of
this Chapter.
4. All greenhouses shall be subject to the development standards
for the zone district for which they are located.
5. Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items,
vehicles, watercraft or other items not associated with the
cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
H. Hoop House/Cold Frame, when permitted, shall be subject to the following
standards:
1. Hoop house%old frame shall be five (5) feet in height or less and
be 120 square feet or less in floor area.
2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the Deck (Not Ground Level)
setback requirements as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 2 of this
title and summarized in Section 1 of Chapter 8 of this title.
3. One hoop house%old frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review.
5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of any
kind.
IV. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12, 2016 where a
recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4-2
(Stockmar and Gillette opposed). Although the PEC as a body forwarded a
recommendation of approval, individual members voiced varied concerns regarding the
proposal that were not shared by the majority. These concerns include:
• Hoop Houses/Cold Frames should be subject to design review, in contrast
to the proposal.
• Additional regulations beyond setbacks concerning the visibility of Hoop
Houses/Cold Frames are necessary.
• How will a lack of general upkeep or unsightly enclosures be handled?
• If design review is required for Hoop Houses/Cold Frames, the fee should
be waived.
• Lighting should be prohibited in greenhouses at all times.
V. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance
No. 26, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 67 of 14
VI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2016
B. Planning and Environmental Commission Staff Memorandum, 09-12-2016
C. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes, 09-12-2016
D. Community Development Memorandum concerning Greenhouses, presented to
Vail Town Council on August 2, 2016
E. PowerPoint Presentation, 10-04-2016
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 68 of 14
ORDINANCE NO. 26
SERIES 2016
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2: DEFINITIONS AND 14-10: DESIGN
REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF
GREENHOUSES AND HOOP HOUSES/COLD FRAMES.
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to provide opportunities for residents
to participate in growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory
framework while reducing the potential impact on neighboring properties;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail
has held public hearings on the proposed prescribed regulations amendment and on
September 12, 2016 submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment furthers the general
and specific purposes of the zoning regulations;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment promotes the
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community
of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 12-2-2: Definitions of Words and Terms.
GREENHOUSE: An outdoor structure, heated or unheated, constructed primarily
of plass or other rigid translucent material, which is devoted to the protection or
cultivation of food or ornamental crows.
HOOP HOUSE/COLD FRAME: An unheated outdoor enclosure used for the
purpose of growing crops and/or for protecting seedlings and plants from cold
weather but not containing any mechanical or electrical systems or storage of
any items.
1
October 4, 2016 - Page 69 of 14
Section 2. Section 14-10-5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 14-10-5: Building Materials and Design.
B. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main
structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components
of greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement.
Section 3. Section 14-10-10 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 14-10-10: Accessory Structures; Utilities; Service Area.
G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subiect to the followinq standards:
1. All wall and roofina materials shall be constructed of riaid construction
and shall not include polyethylene or other similar flexible films.
2. All non -translucent elements including framinq and doors shall be
painted to be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings.
3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00 P.M.
and 6:00 A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 7 of this
Chapter.
4. All greenhouses shall be subiect to the development standards for the
zone district for which they are located.
5. Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items,
vehicles, watercraft or other items not associated with the cultivation of
food or ornamental crops.
H. Hooa House/Cold Frame. when aermitted. shall be subiect to the followina
standards:
1. Hoop house%old frame shall be five (5) feet in height or less and be
120 square feet or less in floor area.
2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the Deck (Not Ground Level)
setback requirements as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 2 of this title
and summarized in Section 1 of Chapter 8 of this title.
3. One hoop house%old frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review.
5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of an kind.
ind.
Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
2
October 4, 2016 - Page 70 of 14
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this
ordinance, shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended.
The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or
part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4t" day of October, 2016 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day of
, 2016, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 2016.
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
3
Dave Chapin, Mayor
October 4, 2016 - Page 71 of 14
0) rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 12, 2016
SUBJECT: A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review
Standards and Guidelines related to the regulation of greenhouses and hoop
houses/cold frames. (PEC16-0032)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
I. SUMMARY
This is a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review
Standards and Guidelines related to the proposed regulation of greenhouses and hoop
houses/cold frames. It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for
residents to participate in growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory
framework while reducing the potential impact on neighboring properties.
Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulations
Amendment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for residents to participate in
growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory framework while reducing
the potential impact on neighboring properties. The Vail Town Code currently has a
limited reference to greenhouses and no distinction between these types of accessory
structures and others such as playhouses, toolsheds or garages. Because of a
heightened interest in growing food for personal consumption, the amendment has been
proposed to:
• Provide definitions for Greenhouses and Hoop Houses/Cold Frames
October 4, 2016 - Page 72 of 14
Provide minimal standards related to the design, placement and operation
of these accessory structures.
Afford the Design Review Board flexibility in reviewing the design and
materials of a proposed greenhouse, formerly required to be constructed
out of the same or similar materials as the primary structure.
It is the intent of the amendment to provide opportunities for residents to participate in
growing food or ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory framework while reducing
the potential negative impact on neighboring properties
III. BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department has experienced an increase in requests from
residents interested in utilizing accessory structures for food production in addition to an
increase in the number of concerns expressed by neighbors about non -permitted
accessory structures. In response, staff prepared and presented a summary of existing
Town of Vail regulations concerning these types of structures and a synopsis of other
communities' approaches. This memo, presented to the Vail Town Council on August 2,
2016, is included as Attachment A. Although no specific direction was offered by the
Town Council, staff felt that community interest coupled with a lack of regulations specific
to these types of structures warranted the proposed amendment.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
Section 3-7 Amendment (in part)
A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the
zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by
the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
B. Initiation:
1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for
a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners
of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and
the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all
owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 73 of 14
property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed
envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The
petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the
administrator.
V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The following amendments are proposed with new language in bold and items to be
removed designated by a strikethrough.
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
GREENHOUSE: An outdoor structure, heated or unheated, constructed primarily
of glass or other rigid translucent material, which is devoted to the protection or
cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
HOOP HOUSE/COLD FRAME: An unheated outdoor enclosure used for the
purpose of growing crops and/or for protecting seedlings and plants from cold
weather but not containing any mechanical or electrical systems or storage of
any items.
14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:
B. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main
structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components of
greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement.
14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS:
G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards:
1. All wall and roofing materials shall be constructed of rigid
construction and shall not include polyethylene or other similar
flexible films.
2. All non -translucent elements including framing and doors shall
be painted to be compatible with the site and surrounding
buildings.
3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00
P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 7 of
this Chapter.
4. All greenhouses shall be subject to the development standards
for the zone district for which they are located.
5. Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items,
vehicles, watercraft or other items not associated with the
cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 74 of 14
H. Hoop House/Cold Frame, when permitted, shall be subject to the following
standards:
1. Hoop house%old frame shall be five (5) feet in height or less and
be 120 square feet or less in floor area.
2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the Deck (Not Ground Level)
setback requirements as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 2 of this
title and summarized in Section 1 of Chapter 8 of this title.
3. One hoop house%old frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review.
5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of any
kind.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning
and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a
change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following:
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations by provide opportunities for residents to participate in growing food or
ornamental crops within a minimal regulatory framework while reducing the potential
impact on neighboring properties. This text amendment meets the following purposes of
the zoning regulations:
12-1-2 A
General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and
enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of high quality.
12-1-2 B
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic
values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 75 of 14
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the
town. This change will establish clear and consistent language in the Vail Town Code.
Following are some of the relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan:
• Goal #1: Vail will continue to manage growth, maintaining a balance between
the bulk and mass of residential, commercial and recreational uses to ensure
the quality, character, diversity and vitality of the town by ensuring that all
regulatory and advisory land use documents are updated and current,
providing ease of compliance and enforcement, and uniformity among
regulatory and advisory documents.
• Goal #3: Ensure fairness and consistency in the development review
process.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
The amendment is in response to a lack of clarity within existing regulations. The
proposed language provides a regulatory framework for greenhouses and hoop
houses/cold frames currently absent and responds to an increased awareness in the
community surrounding backyard food production.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
The proposed text amendment provides clear terminology within the Vail Town Code so
that regulations are consistent with municipal development objectives. The amendment
provides opportunities for local food production while limiting possible adverse effects
on neighboring properties and community aesthetics.
As a result, staff finds this criterion to be met.
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 76 of 14
5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VI of this
memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment to 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design
Review Standards and Guidelines related to the regulation of greenhouses and hoop
houses/cold frames.
If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the
proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendments to
Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review Standards and Guidelines
related to the regulation of greenhouses and hoop houses/cold frames. (PEC16-
0032)."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed
Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of the
Community Development Department memorandum dated September 12, 2016,
and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Town of Vail Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 77 of 14
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Community Development Memorandum concerning Greenhouses, presented to
Vail Town Council on August 2, 2016
Town of Vail Page 7
October 4, 2016 - Page 78 of 14
TOW?J OF ffl1 '
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 12, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan
Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Brian Stockmar
Absent: Kirk Hansen
2. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish
Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section
12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units
and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures,
located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030).
Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Matt Panfil
Action: Continue to October 10, 2016
Motion: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0
Matt Panfil, Town Planner, provided an overview of the request as well as a
refresher of the SDD review process. Project includes 170 Limited Service Lodge
Units (LSLUs) and 113 Employee Housing Units (EHUs).Staff concerns include
building height, more detail on parking operations and tandem parking spaces,
mixed-use parking credit, retaining wall heights, lack of porte-cochere, impacts on
views, ADA parking spaces, drive aisle width with deliveries, car impacts on lower
level EHUs. The applicant requests, and staff recommends, the meeting be tabled to
the October 10, 2016 meeting to allow more time for consideration of the request by
the public.
Chairman Rediker opened the meeting to questions by the Commission for staff.
There were no questions of staff.
Dominic Mauriello, applicant, provided an introduction and overview of the proposed
project.
October 4, 2016 - Page 79 of 14
Peter Dumon, representative of the Harp Group of Chicago, introduced himself and
provided opening remarks on behalf of the development team.
Mauriello provided a presentation of the project including: site history, neighborhood
context, hotel operations, rental employee housing units, deviations from the
underlying zoning, and his anticipated schedule.
Rediker opened the meeting to questions by the Commission of the applicant.
Pratt: Will the hotel laundry be done on site?
Mauriello: Yes.
Gillette: What will the decks look like? Will they allow outside storage of bikes, etc.?
Dumon: The decks will be slim. Storage for bikes and sporting goods equipment
will likely be accommodated in the parking area. There will be no outside storage on
decks.
Rediker: What consideration was given to snow storage and roof shedding of snow?
Mauriello: Deferred to next meeting where greater detail will be provided by the
project architect.
Rediker: What provisions for visitors/guest parking is being made in light of the
residential component of the project?
Mauriello: Believes enough parking is being provided to accommodate all the uses
proposed due to the parking surplus.
Gillette: How will the hotel breakfast operate?
Dumon: Marriott Residence Inn brand standard is complimentary breakfast for hotel
guests only. They do not serve lunch or dinner, but do provide late afternoon hors
d'oeuvres at a Manager's Reception.
Rediker: Asked about loading and delivery for use by the residents of the EHUs.
Mauriello: There are not many expected day to day deliveries, but a majority will
load from the interior of the garage.
Rediker: Will EHUs be furnished?
Mauriello: No
October 4, 2016 - Page 80 of 14
Gillette: Asked about the retaining wall heights and locations.
Mauriello: Clarified the location and heights of all retaining walls.
Rediker: What is the average height on the north side of the building?
Mauriello: About 5 stories on the rear. Referred to a PowerPoint slide.
Gillette: Asked to see additional modeling to get a better perspective of heights.
Lockman: Asked about the multi -use credit for parking.
Mauriello: Believes the credit is valid as applied to this project.
Lockman: Asked for more details about the front entrance and exits.
Mauriello: Referred to a PowerPoint slide to illustrate the turning movements and
plans.
Gillette: Who is requiring the turn lane from frontage road?
Mauriello: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Gillette: Does the garage accommodate a pickup truck?
Mauriello: Yes.
George Ruther: Addressed the frontage road plans and intersection as it pertains to
review and approval by CDOT.
Gillette: Asked about the frontage road recreation path and connection to Buffehr
Creek Road.
Mauriello: Addressed the plans and trail system east to west.
Rediker: Asked about the EHUs and eligibility and pricing for rental rates.
Mauriello: Reviewed the anticipated deed restriction. If there is not enough interest
from locals, the units would likely become market rate apartments.
Rediker closed questions from the commission and opened public comment.
Public comment:
Chris Burns, Buffehr Creek Townhomes condo association: The proposal is too
dense and too big. Parking and access are inadequate, may lead to backups on
October 4, 2016 - Page 81 of 14
road if no other access into garage. The height is too tall and impacts the neighbors,
especially at the west end. The setbacks are inadequate. Loading and delivery is
inadequate and will impact adjacent roadways. This is not a workable plan. Where
will workers park? How will this be built without impacting neighbors?
Randy Guererro, Mustang Townhomes: Addressed the compatibility, character and
visual integrity of the neighborhood and does not feel the project satisfies those
requirements. Believes the applicant's request for real estate transfer tax waiver is
inappropriate. Believes the previously approved building plan (Marriott Residence
Inn) is acceptable but not the proposed project with EHUs. Believes the applicant is
too vague with details and liberally interpreting the codes with the proposal. I have a
Gore Range view; will that be impacted? Where will vent fans go, at rear toward
neighbors? Northeast corner is going into setbacks. Stay within current codes and
guidelines.
Pratt: Asked staff the status of the previous approval.
Panfil: The previous approval has lapsed.
Barbara Brundin, 1995 Chamonix Lane: Agree with comments made so far.
Proponent of a new West Vail Master Plan; come up with a vision for this area.
Believes the project is too big and dense. She understands the need for employee
housing, but it is too much in this location and there is not enough outdoor open
space for the residents. Believes the hotel use and the employee housing are
incompatible.
Deena DiCorpo, President of the association for 1880 Meadow Ridge Road:
Concerned that the project is too big for the neighborhood.
Gary Weiss: Appealed to the PEC not to violate the forty-eight foot (48') height limit,
citing his belief that the project is too tall.
Mark Levine, Capstone Townhomes: The project is too big and too tall. It will
negatively affect the neighborhood.
Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership: He is not currently taking a stance on the
project, but stated that workforce housing is critical. Mid-level and accessible (non -
luxury) lodging option is very important to Vail.
Andy Gunion, Hillside Condos: Believes the current proposal is too big and out of
character with the neighborhood. The project does not set a good precedent for
neighborhood scale. He supports each project independent of each other, but not
combined on one small site. Suggests the Town work with the developer to put just
employee housing on the site instead.
October 4, 2016 - Page 82 of 14
Steve Lindstrom, Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA): Believes the applicant has
responded to community needs for employee housing, lodging, and parking. The
VLHA supports the project.
George Ruther: Directed the PEC's attention to letters received by community
development staff for the record.
Rediker: Asked that the letters be included with the next meeting packet for more
time to review.
Rediker: Closed public comment.
Stockmar: Concerned with some aspects of the project but needs more time to
study the proposal.
Gillette: Agrees with commissioner Stockmar. Believes that perspective photos from
behind the property are critical. Need to see that there will be adequate storage.
Requested more details about widening the frontage road. A construction staging
plan and the location of exterior mechanical equipment are also important to see.
Pratt: Disclosed his firm was involved with a prior applicant on the Roost site, and is
also trying to resurrect another housing project from 2008 on a different site and may
have to recuse himself if that project moves forward. Elements of the plan he likes
include: the lodging, EHUs, tandem parking, and underground parking in
setbacks/site coverage. He is generally not in favor of establishing an SDD unless a
public benefit or better design is provided as a result. He does not favor the design
as currently proposed. The building massing is too large without enough plane
breaks. Asked staff about deed restrictions for Eagle County residents. Question
answered by George Ruther, who cited the rules of eligibility. Pratt favors a plan
that includes housing for Eagle County employees only if demand can be met. He
feels the project is otherwise too large and too dense.
Kurz: Concurred with Commissioner Pratt. He believes the project would have a
negative impact on the neighborhood. He requested more details on parking,
storage, traffic, etc. Believes the design of the facade does not include enough
articulation. Believes the applicant should work more with the neighborhood.
Lockman: Asked for clarification about formerly approved plan that lapsed. Question
answered by Panfil. Mauriello clarified that the former project was approved and
expired in order for the client to help address workforce housing. Lockman believes
the site coverage is OK as interpreted. He has concerns with the substantial amount
of traffic and associated impacts to the N. Frontage Road. He likes the concept of
employee housing, but believes the building height is the biggest concern.
Rediker: The bulk and mass of the building and lot density are too much. He
appreciates the applicant's unique approach to address employee housing, but the
October 4, 2016 - Page 83 of 14
current proposal does not work. He would like to see better design elevations, more
detailed perspective of height as viewed from vicinity, and for the applicant to
address loading and delivery separately for the hotel use and residences. EHUs
should be ensured to go to locals and not second homeowners. He also would like
to see the location of exterior equipment and venting and how those would impact
views of the neighborhood. He has concerns with commercial laundry machine
venting as well. He also wants to see a plan for snow shedding from the roof and
snow storage and management. A construction staging plan is needed. A future site
visit is warranted.
Gillette: The applicant should superimpose comparative imagery to give better
perspective as to the proposed building. Compare to other large buildings on N.
Frontage Road, such as Simba Run and Vail Run.
3. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-15: Gross
Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances related
to the joint property owner submittal requirement. (PEC16-0031)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence provided an overview of the proposed prescribed
regulations amendment.
Chairman Rediker opened the meeting to questions for Staff:
Stockmar: How has the lack of a definition created uncertainty and has it led to
arbitrary decisions or created inconsistency?
Spence: More of a clarification.
Pratt: Asked for clarification about the terminology in its application.
Spence: Provided example to illustrate its application.
Gillette: Asked for clarification when it is in an SDD.
Spence: Provided SDD example to address the question.
Opened public hearing. No public testimony.
October 4, 2016 - Page 84 of 14
Commissioner comment:
Lockman: Agrees with amendment.
Kurz: OK with the proposal.
Pratt: Not comfortable with the proposal, but if town staff finds it necessary, then is
OK with it.
Gillette: Does not agree with a neighbor having to approve adjacent property
owner's project. Thinks the bigger policy issue should be fixed.
Stockmar: Generally OK with the clarification.
Rediker: Asked why "driveways" is not included in definition of "development lot."
Asked to clarify whether the language is intended to now apply only to structures.
Otherwise feels the modification is beneficial and provides clarity.
Gillette: Asked about notification requirements for DRB applications.
Stockmar: Asked whether this affects covenants.
Spence: No. Those are private, civil agreements.
Gillette: Perhaps the process should involve co -applicants, rather than adjacent
owner sign -off.
4. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review Standards and
Guidelines related to the regulation of greenhouses and hoop houses/cold frames.
(PEC16-0032)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve with condition.
Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 4-2-0
(Stockmar, Gillette opposed)
Condition:
1. Staff shall make the Town Council aware of the concerns expressed by
individual PEC members.
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence provided an overview of the proposed prescribed
regulations amendment through a PowerPoint presentation with examples.
October 4, 2016 - Page 85 of 14
Questions for staff:
Pratt: Do the changes allow a greenhouse be separated from the main house?
Spence: Code currently provides for attached structures such as an attached
sunroom. Provided language from code.
Pratt: Allows lighting and electrical?
Spence: Yes
Lockman: Could someone grow cannabis?
Spence: No, though marijuana grows are prohibited in another part of the code.
Rediker: Do hoop houses and greenhouses have to meet setbacks?
Spence: They have to meet specified setback standards.
Gillette: Feels cold frames should be more tightly regulated subject to design
review.
Stockmar: How many situations are there with hoop/green houses to warrant the
amendment?
Spence: Not often.
Stockmar: Perhaps cold frames should not be allowed.
Rediker: Do hoop houses and cold frames go together? Or differentiated?
Spence: The town code does not have language either way presently.
Gillette: Hoop houses and cold frames should be subject to and approved by DRB.
Neighbor should not have to look at these uses.
Stockmar: Doesn't feel these uses are attractive due to the transparency of the
inside use. Should not be visible to neighbors.
Public comment: No public testimony.
Commissioner comments:
Stockmar: Vail character is important and hoop houses and green houses are not
compatible. The structures are not befitting of our community.
October 4, 2016 - Page 86 of 14
Gillette: Agrees with Commissioner Stockmar. He is OK with green houses. Cold
frames should be subject to design review.
Pratt: Shares concerns of the commissioners, but respects people's property rights.
All should be subject to design review. Feels the variety of translucent materials
could be a problem. Concerned with internal lighting and perhaps no internal lighting
should be permitted.
Kurz: Believe the town should allow for these uses, but is concerned with how we
control the uses and to what degree. Otherwise in favor of allowing the practice.
Lockmar: In favor of allowing the practice and the Town should encourage local
agriculture. In favor of the proposal.
Rediker: Generally favors the proposal. Could language be imposed to include a
mandate for better materials and ensure better upkeep? Prefers design review but
with waived application fees and expedited application process.
Pratt: If subject to design review, then neighbor sign off is necessary when at a
duplex. Affirmed by staff.
Gillette: Pratt wants lighting removed, Stockmar wants screening from adjacent
neighbors property added. Rediker design review fees waived.
Stockmar: Perhaps the PEC should continue the application for now. There is too
much inconsistency among commissioners.
Kurz: Suggest staff come back to the PEC with the suggestions discussed.
Lockman made motion to approve and Kurz seconded. Pratt suggested an
amendment condition that staff relays the PEC's concerns to council. Lockman
amended his motion accordingly and Kurz seconded.
5. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail
Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the
Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract
D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019)
Table to October 24, 2016
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
Action: Table to October 24, 2016
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
October 4, 2016 - Page 87 of 14
6. Approval of Minutes
August 22, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
7. Informational Update
Beavers and the Habitat They Create - Pete Wadden - 20 min.
Watershed Education Coordinator Pete Wadden provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
8. Adjournment
Action: Adjourn
Motion: Kurz
Second: Gillette
Vote: 6-0-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and
order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at
what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970)
479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with
48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD),
for information.
Community Development Department
October 4, 2016 - Page 88 of 14
0) rowN of Vain'
Memorandum
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Private Greenhouses
How are private greenhouses allowed in Vail?
Private greenhouses are allowed as Accessory Uses in the following zone districts, and are
prohibited in any zone district not listed below:
• Hillside Residential (HR)
• Single -Family Residential (SFR)
• Two -Family Residential (R)
• Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
• Residential Cluster (RC)
• Low Density Multiple -Family (LDMF)
• Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF)
• High Density Multiple Family (HDMF)
• Housing (H)
• Agricultural and Open Space (A)
What is an Accessory Use? An accessory use is a use or activity that is subordinate and
incidental to a permitted or conditional use found on the same parcel or property. The term
"accessory use" also applies to accessory structures. For example, a garage is customarily
associated with a residence, but it is smaller in size than the principal use of the land for a
residence. An accessory use or structure is not allowed without a principal use.
Are greenhouses "accessory structures"? Greenhouses in residential zone districts are an
accessory use, and therefore an accessory structure. Like garages, sheds, carports and
swimming pools, they are also subject to design review.
What existing regulations apply to greenhouses, and other accessory uses or accessory
structures? Below are the existing definitions and regulations related to accessory uses:
October 4, 2016 - Page 89 of 14
Definitions
ACCESSORY USE: A use or activity that is subordinate and incidental to a permitted or
conditional use.
BUILDING: Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, or any other enclosed
structure, for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or property.
SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE: A temporary covering erected to accommodate or extend
educational, recreational, and cultural activities. Such temporary coverings may not be in place
for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes
of this title, a seasonal use Or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be
subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure is subject to design
review.
STRUCTURE - Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not
including poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or
mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the design review board, swimming pools and
tennis courts may be exempted from this definition.
12-4-2: PERMITTED USES:
A. Listed Uses Exclusive: The listing of any use as being a permitted use in any particular zone
district shall be deemed an exclusion of such use from any other zone district unless expressly
permitted as a permitted use, conditional use or accessory use.
B. Prohibited If Not Permitted: The permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses in the
particular districts shall be deemed to be exclusive uses for those districts, and any use not
specifically permitted as a permitted use is prohibited unless a determination of similar use is
made in accordance with section 12-3-4 of this title.
14-10-5 Building Materials and Design
B. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and any
accessory structures upon the site.
14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS:
A. Design of accessory structures upon a site shall be compatible with the design and materials
of the main structure or structures upon the site.
B. Accessory buildings generally should be attached to the main building either directly or by
means of a continuous wall, fence or similar feature of the same or a complementary material
as the main building's exterior finish.
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 90 of 14
C. All utility service systems shall be installed underground. Any utility system the operation of
which requires aboveground installation shall be located and/or screened so as not to detract
from the overall site design quality.
D. All utility meters shall be enclosed or screened from public view.
E. Service areas, outdoor storage, and garbage storage shall be screened from adjacent
properties, structures, streets, and other public areas by fences, berms, or landscaping.
F. Adequate trash storage areas shall be provided. There shall be year round access to all trash
storage areas which shall not be used for any other purpose.
Is a greenhouse a seasonal use or structure? Should it be? Based on the definitions above,
a greenhouse is considered a structure if it is constructed with a fixed location on the ground.
Greenhouses that are used year-round are considered a structure. A low, temporary cover used
to protect gardens from frost (called a hoop house), which is not affixed to the ground and can
be easily moved or dismantle, would be not be considered a structure. Hoop houses are not
currently defined in the Vail Town Code. Hoop houses are usually made from plastic or
aluminum piping or other material covered with translucent material for the purpose of growing
food or ornamental crops.
A Seasonal Use or Structure is a temporary covering erected to accommodate or extend
educational, recreational, and cultural activities. This is a specific land use permitted as a
conditional use only in the Outdoor Recreation (OR) district, and should not be confused with a
private greenhouse.
The decision of whether a seasonal greenhouse or hoop house should be considered a
structure, and should be subject to the regulations for structures (setbacks, height, site
coverage, etc.) is a policy decision to be made by elected officials. By defining a greenhouse as
a structure, adopted regulations apply, including regulation of design, size, and location. The
Community Development Department considers a greenhouse to be an accessory structure,
which is regulated by the current Town Code. Any change to the Town Code should include a
discussion of the benefits of regulating greenhouses and hoop houses, and the cost, efforts,
and amount of staff time involved.
Is a building permit required for a greenhouse? — Greenhouses are considered accessory
structures, and require a Design Review Board application. Structures over 120 square feet also
require building permits. Electrical permits are required for any structure (regardless of size) that
has electrical power. If water lines are installed, a plumbing permit is required. A plumbing
permit is not required for using a garden hose attached to an existing water line. Where new
water lines are installed, a back flow preventer or air gap device is required.
Are there different rules for business vs. private greenhouses?
• Business use — Current zoning regulations do not permit greenhouses as an accessory
use in business districts. Greenhouses could be included as part of the primary use
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 91 of 14
(such as a florist, or building materials store), and in such case will need to follow
existing design standards, as well as meet required parking, setbacks, site coverage,
and other relevant codes. Seasonal Plant Product Business is a conditional use in the
Heavy Services (HS) district, which could reasonably be expected to have a
greenhouse.
• Private use — Where allowed, greenhouses are subject to design review, including
materials, setbacks, and other relevant codes.
Do Greenhouses they count as GRFA? In residential uses, current regulations count storage
areas as GRFA. Greenhouses are a type of storage area, and therefore should be counted as
GRFA to be equitable.
Permanent vs. Temporary — Determination of temporary vs. permanent is based on the
following design characteristics: Is the structure attached to a foundation? Does it have power or
water lines connected? (Other than a garden house connected to an existing water line?)
• Temporary structures - In residential zone districts, temporary greenhouses used only
for personal use could be allowed with less regulation if limited in duration. This may
require a code amendment or written policy to clarify when adopted regulations apply.
• Permanent structures — Greenhouses installed on foundations, connected to water or
electrical power, or installed for more than 6 months, are not temporary and are required
to follow design review and other adopted regulations.
Attached vs. Detached? — If attached to a home, greenhouses will be considered permanent,
and must meet design standards. Detached structures are strongly discouraged, but would still
be considered accessory structures, which are regulated. Residential developments are
encouraged to have an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development,
including compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing,
architectural details, site grading and landscaping materials and features.
Are greenhouses allowed in floodplains? Based on current regulations, structures cannot be
located within the floodplain. Any structure, temporary or permanent, located within a floodplain
would increase flood hazards as these structures can be washed away in a flood and may
cause downstream damage or blockage of water flow during a flood event.
Questions for the Council to Consider
Are existing regulations sufficient?
• Do we need to adopt more specific regulations?
• What issues are not currently addressed?
• Has this issue been raised before?
• How often do we expect this issue to come up in the future?
• What are the intended, and unintended, consequences of regulating greenhouses?
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 92 of 14
Is there currently a problem in the community with private greenhouses? If so, what is
the problem? There has not been an overwhelming demand for greenhouses in Vail. Some of
these structures currently exist, but applications for greenhouses are rare. Also, existing design
guidelines are in place for review of any new applications. There are a few temporary
greenhouses and hoop houses in the community, which were constructed without permits. The
greenhouses constructed without permits are in violation of the Town Code.
Should the Town adopt size limitations, or other design criteria, for greenhouses? If the
Town Council would like to place limits on the size or location of greenhouses, additional
regulations can be adopted. However, there are already regulations adopted to regulate
structure placement, materials and size. Any change to regulations should consider the
purposes of a greenhouse, including the design features necessary to make greenhouses
successful. For example, the use of large amounts of glass or plastic may be necessary to be
useful, but these materials may contrast with the existing materials of the principal structure and
design goals of the community.
How do other communities regulate greenhouses and hoop houses?
Some communities regulate greenhouses and hoop houses as accessory structures, and are
subject to the same regulations. Other communities have expressly removed regulations to
promote local food growing and to support other community development goals. Following are a
few communities that regulate these uses and structures.
Boulder, CO
• Greenhouses and hoop houses treated as accessory structures
• No building permit required under the following conditions:
• Maximum 120 square feet
• One detached structure allowed on lots less than 0.5 aces in size
• Two detached structures allowed on lots larger than 0.5 acres in size
Wheat Ridge, CO
• Allowed as accessory structures on residentially zoned property
• Setbacks and other development standards apply
• Permit is required
Minneapolis, MN:
• No building permit if used for less than 180 days per year
• Hoop house allowed as accessory structure, for no more than 180 days
• Permanent hoop house subject to site plan review and building code
• Hoop house not to exceed four (4) feet in height; not allowed in side yard
• Waiver of some regulations for community gardens
• Fire Code regulations apply
Milwaukee, WI:
• Hoop houses require a permit; no fee is required
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 93 of 14
Agricultural buildings like hoop houses are exempt from the Wisconsin Commercial
Building Code, however the structures are checked to ensure they meet all zoning
regulations
A hoop house may be no taller than 14 feet at its highest point. The maximum sidewall
height is also 14 feet
State of New Jersey:
Temporary greenhouses and hoop houses are exempt from the Uniform Construction Code, if
four criteria are met:
• No permanent anchoring system or foundation
• No storage of solvents, fertilizers, gases, or other chemical or flammable materials
• No wider than 31 feet
• Unobstructed path no longer than 150 feet required from any point to a door or fully
accessible wall area
• Covering materials shall not exceed six (6) mils or 152.4 micrometers
• Electrical and mechanical permits may be required
• Water backflow preventers required.
Town of Vail Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 94 of 14
Greenhouses, Hoop Houses and
Cold Frames
; ljl IA J I`J IT Y -1 \ J -r
Jonathan Spence
Town Planner
Office: 9 70.4 79.2321
jspence@vailgov.com
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 96 of 149 2
Greenhouses, Hoop Houses and
Cold Frames
It is the intent of the amendment to provide
opportunities for residents to participate in
growing food or ornamental crops within a
minimal regulatory framework while reducing
the potential negative impact on neighboring
properties.
Town of Vail
October 4, 2016 -Page 97 of 149
What is a Hoop House or Cold Frame
An unheated outdoor
enclosure used for the
purpose of growing crops
and/or for protecting
seedlings and plants from
cold weather but not
containing any
mechanical or electrical
systems or storage of any
items.
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 98 of 149 4
What is a Greenhouse
An outdoor structure,
heated or unheated,
constructed primarily
of glass or other rigid
translucent material,
which is devoted to
the protection or
cultivation of food or
ornamental crops.
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 99 of 149 5
What are the proposed regulations?
G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subject to the following
standards:
1. All wall and roofing materials shall be constructed of rigid
construction and shall not include polyethylene or other similar
flexible films.
2. All non -translucent elements including framing and doors shall be
painted to be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings.
3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00
P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 7 of
this Chapter.
4. All greenhouses shall be subject to the development standards for
the zone district for which they are located.
5. Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items,
vehicles, watercraft or other items not associated with the
cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 100 of 149 6
What are the proposed regulations?
H. Hoop House/Cold Frame, when permitted, shall be subject to the
following standards:
1. Hoop house%old frame shall be five (5) feet in height or less and be 120
square feet or less in floor area.
2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the Deck (Not Ground Level)
setback requirements as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 2 of this title
and summarized in Section 1 of Chapter 8 of this title.
3. One hoop house%old frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review.
5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of any kind.
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 101 of 149 7
What would not be permitted?
An enclosure
>120 square feet
or >5 feet in
height made out
of non -rigid
materials
Town of Vail I Community Development I October 4, 2016 - Page 102 of 149 8
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC:
TOWN OF VAIP
Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016, First Reading, Code Amendments to Sections 12-2:
Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential
Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property
owner submittal requirement.
PRESENTER(S): Jonathan Spence, Planner
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
BACKGROUND:
It is the intent of the amendment to clarify and codify existing standard operating procedures
related to joint property owner submittal requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the proposed
Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12, 2016 where a recommendation for
approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 6-0.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Town Council Memorandum
Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016
Planning and Environmental Commission Staff Memorandum, 09-12-2016
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes, 09-12-2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 104 of 1
TOWN OF
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Memorandum
Vail Town Council
Community Development Department
Planning and Environmental Commission
October 4, 2016
First Reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016. Amendments to Sections 12-
2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15:
Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17:
Variances related to the joint property owner submittal requirement. (PEC16-
0031)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
SUMMARY
The purpose of this memorandum is to propose to the Vail Town Council a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-14:
Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use
Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property owner submittal requirement.
(PEC16-0031) It is the intent of the amendment to clarify and codify existing standard
operating procedures related to joint property owner submittal requirements.
The Town of Vail requires applications for properties that share dimensional (GRFA,
Site Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and landscape design)
standards or guidelines to obtain written approval of the other property owner, owners
or applicable owners' association. The new defined term, Development Lot, will assist
prospective applicants and property owners in determining when joint property owner
approval is required.
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment on September 12, 2016 where a
recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 6-0.
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department strives for rules and regulations that are
consistent, enforceable, predictable and easily understood. The current code language
October 4, 2016 - Page 105 of 1
related to when written approval of another property owner, owners or applicable owners'
association is required is unclear. The existing language does not adequately relay to a
prospective applicant or property owner the circumstances when this approval is needed.
The proposed language will assist the community in understanding when joint property
owner approval is required when making an application.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The following amendments are proposed with new language in bold and items to be
removed designated by a strikethrough.
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
DEVELOPMENT LOT. A delineation of property that may include one or more
structures and/or lot(s) that collectively share dimensional and/or design
standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex
property containing two dwelling units, a condominium complex of one (1) or
more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share
dimensional (GRFA, Site Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and
landscape design) standards or guidelines.
12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE
B. Conceptual Design Review:
Submittal Requirements: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring
design approval as prescribed by this chapter may submit plans for conceptual
review by the design review board to the department of community development.
The purpose of a conceptual review shall be to give the applicant a basic
understanding with respect to the design concept and the compatibility of a
proposal with the design guidelines contained within this chapter. This procedure is
recommended mainly for those applications of a higher impact than single-family
and two-family residences although projects of that nature shall not be excluded
the opportunity to request a conceptual design review. The following information
shall be submitted for a conceptual review ten (10) days prior to a scheduled
design review board meeting:
d. Application form. If the nrn eo ;s owned ;n nnmmnn /nnnelomini„m 000nnia inn)
or -jointly Mth otheF property owners suGh as d4veways, AIB par. -els oF G par, --e (S
in duplex oUbdiyioiono by way of example and not limiter+inn the w4tton
approvai of the otheF property owner-, owners or appfiGabie I
aSSOGiat
shall be requiFed
. If the property is owned in common (condominium
association) and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval
of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association
shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or
signature on the application.
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 106 of 1
C. Preliminary And Final Design Review:
1. The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as
prescribed by this chapter shall submit for final design approval all of the following
material to the administrator, unless the administrator determines within five (5)
days of a written request for such determination that some of the following material
may be excluded:
1. Form And Fee: Application form and appropriate fee. if the nr^nor*„ is owno,� in
i^4yeways AIB parGe►s or C parGels in dbWlex su divisions by way of example
crrv�vv-cry�� �varo r� ter' �,
and not fimitation, the w4tten approval of the other propeo owner-, owners o
app►inah►e owners' assonia*ion shall he required If the property is owned in
common (condominium association) and/or located within a Development
Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a
letter of approval or signature on the application.
12-14-18: BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS:
A. Definition: See section 12-2-2 of this title for definition of "bed and breakfast".
B. Location And Criteria: Bed and breakfast operations may be allowed as a conditional
use in those zone districts as specified in this title. If permitted as a conditional use
pursuant to chapter 16 of this title, bed and breakfast operations shall be subject to
the following requirements:
5. If a bed and breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common
and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval of the other
property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required
the '
assonia+ion shall he requireto be submitted with the application for a conditional
use permit.
12-15-4: INTERIOR CONVERSIONS
D. Process: Applications shall be made to the department of community development
staff on forms provided by the department. Applications for interior conversions to
single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi -family dwelling units located in
a special development district (SDD) pursuant to this section shall also be allowed
without amending the GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA
restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to
the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. If -the
property owners SUGh as dfiveways, AIB par -Gels or G par -Gels in duplex subdivisions,
by way of example, and not fimitation, the w4tten approval of the other prope
owner, owners or applinah►e owners' assoniation shall he required If the property is
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 107 of 1
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The planning staff will review
the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the
interior conversion section. Submittals shall include:
12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE):
E. Procedure:
Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the
department of community development. if the proper*„ is owned in nommen
oro�Gels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example, and not limitation, the
w4tten approval of the otheF property owner-, owners or appliGable owners
accnniatinn shall be required /
. If the property is owned in common
(condominium association) and/or located within a Development Lot, the
written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners'
association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include:
12-16-2: APPLICATION; CONTENTS:
Application for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by the
administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other
material containing the following information:
owner owners or applicable ownens' assooiation shall be required If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord.
24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 1: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 1: Ord.
16(1978) § 4(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.200)
12-17-2: APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The
application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material
containing the following information:
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 108 of 1
by way of exampie and not fimitation, the w4tten approval of the other prope
owner, owners nr applicable ewnons' assoGiatinn shall be required If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application.
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance
No. 27, Series of 2016 upon first reading.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2016
B. Planning and Environmental Commission Staff Memorandum, 09-12-2016
C. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes, 09-12-2016
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 109 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 27
SERIES 2016
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2: DEFINITIONS, 12-11: DESIGN
REVIEW, 12-14: SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, 12-15: GROSS RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA, 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND 12-17: VARIANCES,
RELATED TO THE JOINT PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to clarify and codify existing standard
operating procedures related to joint property owner submittal requirements.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
held public hearings on the proposed prescribed regulations amendment and on
September 12, 2016 submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the Town;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment furthers the general
and specific purposes of the zoning regulations;
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment promotes the
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community
of the highest quality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 12-2-2: Definitions of Words and Terms
DEVELOPMENT LOT: A delineation of property that may include one or more
structures and/or lotLs) that collectively share dimensional and/or design
standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex
property containing two dwelling units, a condominium complex of one (1)o
more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share
dimensional (GRFA, Site Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and
landscape design) standards or guidelines.
Section 2. Section 12-11-4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
1
October 4, 2016 - Page 110 of 1
12-11-4: Materials to be Submitted, Procedure
B. Conceptual Design Review:
Submittal Requirements: The owner or authorized agent of any project
requiring design approval as prescribed by this chapter may submit plans
for conceptual review by the design review board to the department of
community development. The purpose of a conceptual review shall be to
give the applicant a basic understanding with respect to the design concept
and the compatibility of a proposal with the design guidelines contained
within this chapter. This procedure is recommended mainly for those
applications of a higher impact than single-family and two-family residences
although projects of that nature shall not be excluded the opportunity to
request a conceptual design review. The following information shall be
submitted for a conceptual review ten (10) days prior to a scheduled design
review board meeting:
d. Application form.
......... ........... .� ... J......IJ ...... ........ 1.....f......J ........... ......... ..... .......... ...J.., . --
limitations ,n the 4tten ppFeyal of the ether reoem4er , es em4erer
nnrly
onnl;nohle , wpers' ssoG atiop ohon be equi ed. If the property is owned
in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner,
owners. or aaalicable owners' association shall be reauired. This can be
either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application.
C. Preliminary And Final Design Review:
1. The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as
prescribed by this chapter shall submit for final design approval all of the
following material to the administrator, unless the administrator determines
within five (5) days of a written request for such determination that some of
the following material may be excluded:
Form And Fee: Application form and appropriate fee. if the pro port„
owners suGh nas-d4ile� ,rays, /1 /mac In nr G n rc 1s ; duplesubdivi-sionsi:
>by way of example>
the other nrepei lv ow7ner , ,ter r inn -Gable -AW, ern' ac c oGiatien chill
e requked. If the property is owned in common (condominium
association) and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval
of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association
shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or
signature on the application.
2
October 4, 2016 - Page 111 of 1
Section 3. Section 12-14-18 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 12-14-18: Bed and Breakfast Operations.
A. Definition: See section 12-2-2 of this title for definition of "bed and breakfast".
B. Location And Criteria: Bed and breakfast operations may be allowed as a
conditional use in those zone districts as specified in this title. If permitted as
a conditional use pursuant to chapter 16 of this title, bed and breakfast
operations shall be subject to the following requirements:
5. If a bed and breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in
common and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval of
the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be
required the w4tten approval of the other property owner owners, nr
oppl;nohle owner' 0000njotjen shag he required to be submitted with the
application for a conditional use permit.
Section 4. Section 12-15-4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
12-15-4: Interior Conversions
D. Process: Applications shall be made to the department of community
development staff on forms provided by the department. Applications for
interior conversions to single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi-
family dwelling units located in a special development district (SDD) pursuant
to this section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provisions of
the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for
the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless
the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. If the property is owned in
onmmnn /nnndominium 000nojotjnnl nr jointly with other prnpertnero UGh
as e0vewaYS, AIB par -Gels or C par -Gels in duple.y S -w -h -divisions, by way o
evomn/eand nolimitation the wr4tten approval of the other prnnerty owner,
, t , r ,
owners or oppljnoh/e owners' 000nnj Lien oho// he required. If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the
form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The planning staff
will review the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all
provisions of the interior conversion section. Submittals shall include:
Section 5. Section 12-15-5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
12-15-5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance):
3
October 4, 2016 - Page 112 of 1
E. Procedure:
Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the
department of community development. if the proper*., is owned in eemmnn
d4vewa„s or G narnels in duplex subdivisions by way of example and not
limitation the written approval of the other property owner owners or
applinahle Pers ' assnniation shall he require ,^. if the property is owned in
common (condominium association) and/or located within a Development
Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a
letter of approval or signature on the application. The application shall also
include:
Section 6. Section 12-16-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
12-16-2: Application; Contents:
Application for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by
the administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans,
and other material containing the following information:
M
sh,livisinns by n,a„ of example and not fimitation, the w4tten approval of the
req-uiredlf the property is owned in common (condominium association)
and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval of the other
aroaerty owner. owners. or aaalicable owners' association shall be required.
This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the
application.
Section 7. Section 12-17-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows:
12-17-2: Application Information Required:
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the
administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans,
and other material containing the following information:
subdiWsien, by way of example and not fimitation, the w4tten approval of the
other .. .. shall be
r,- q u minium association)
0
October 4, 2016 - Page 113 of 1
and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval of the other
Property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required.
This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the
application.
Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 10. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this
ordinance, shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended.
The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or
part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4t" day of October, 2016 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 18th day of October,
2016, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 2016.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
5
October 4, 2016 - Page 114 of 1
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
October 4, 2016 - Page 115 of 1
0) rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 12, 2016
SUBJECT: A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review,
12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16:
Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property owner
submittal requirement. (PEC16-0031)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
SUMMARY
This is a proposal to clarify and codify existing standard operating procedures related to
joint property owner submittal requirements. The Town of Vail requires applications for
properties that that share dimensional (GRFA, Site Coverage etc.) and/or design
(unified architectural and landscape design) standards or guidelines to obtain written
approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owners' association. The
proposal includes a new defined term, Development Lot, in Section 12-2: Definitions
and associated revisions to submittal requirement language in Sections 12-11: Design
Review, 12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16:
Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances.
Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulations
Amendment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This is a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to clarify and codify
existing standard operating procedures related to joint property owner submittal
requirements. The proposal includes a new defined term, Development Lot, in Section
12-2: Definitions and associated revisions to submittal requirement language in
Sections 12-11: Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross
Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances.
October 4, 2016 - Page 116 of 1
The Town of Vail requires applications for properties that share dimensional (GRFA, Site
Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and landscape design) standards or
guidelines to obtain written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable
owners' association. The new defined term, Development Lot, will assist prospective
applicants and property owners in determining when joint property owner approval is
required.
Development Lot: A delineation of property that may include one or more
structures and or lot(s) that collectively share dimensional and/or design
standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex
property containing two dwelling units, a condominium complex of one (1) or
more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share
dimensional (GRFA, Site Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and
landscape design) standards or guidelines.
Currently, the Town of Vail GIS system utilizes the Development Lot concept as an
available layer in the online mapping system. The proposed language is consistent with
this practice.
III. BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department strives for rules and regulations that are
consistent, enforceable, predictable and easily understood. The current code language
related to when written approval of another property owner, owners or applicable owners'
association is required is unclear. The existing language does not adequately relay to a
prospective applicant or property owner the circumstances when this approval is needed.
The proposed language will assist the community in understanding when joint property
owner approval is required when making an application.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
Section 3-7 Amendment (in part)
A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the
zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by
the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
B. Initiation:
1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 117 of 1
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for
a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners
of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and
the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all
owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the
property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed
envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The
petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the
administrator.
V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The following amendments are proposed with new language in bold and items to be
removed designated by a strikethrough.
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
DEVELOPMENT LOT: A delineation of property that may include one or more
structures and/or lot(s) that collectively share dimensional and/or design
standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex
property containing two dwelling units, a condominium complex of one (1) or
more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share
dimensional (GRFA, Site Coverage etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and
landscape design) standards or guidelines.
12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE
B. Conceptual Design Review:
Submittal Requirements: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring
design approval as prescribed by this chapter may submit plans for conceptual
review by the design review board to the department of community development.
The purpose of a conceptual review shall be to give the applicant a basic
understanding with respect to the design concept and the compatibility of a
proposal with the design guidelines contained within this chapter. This procedure is
recommended mainly for those applications of a higher impact than single-family
and two-family residences although projects of that nature shall not be excluded
the opportunity to request a conceptual design review. The following information
shall be submitted for a conceptual review ten (10) days prior to a scheduled
design review board meeting:
d. Application form.
- -- -
in duplex sUbdivisions, by way of example and not fimitation, the w
property . owners . ownens'aSsoGiat..
propertyshall be Fequired. If the (condominium
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 118 of 1
association) and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval
of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association
shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or
signature on the application.
C. Preliminary And Final Design Review.
1. The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as
prescribed by this chapter shall submit for final design approval all of the following
material to the administrator, unless the administrator determines within five (5)
days of a written request for such determination that some of the following material
may be excluded:
1. Form And Fee: Application form and appropriate fee. If the property is ow-neiJ in
eemmen (eende *ium asseeiatien) or ieinthw w4h ether nrenerty owners sue- as
delve{ ways A49 na G paFGe�s 44 nl s by way of exampleli
and not mitation, unwritten ritten a proyal of t�hTe ether r -enemy owner-, ownersoners er
annlioahle ow -Pers' association shall he :enquired. If the property is owned in
common (condominium association) and/or located within a Development
Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a
letter of approval or signature on the application.
12-14-18: BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS:
A. Definition: See section 12-2-2 of this title for definition of "bed and breakfast".
B. Location And Criteria: Bed and breakfast operations may be allowed as a conditional
use in those zone districts as specified in this title. If permitted as a conditional use
pursuant to chapter 16 of this title, bed and breakfast operations shall be subject to
the following requirements:
5. If a bed and breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common
and/or located within a Development Lot, the written approval of the other
property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required
the unwritten approval of the other property owner owners or applicable owners
asseniatien shall he requirew! to be submitted with the application fora conditional
use permit.
12-15-4: INTERIOR CONVERSIONS
D. Process: Applications shall be made to the department of community development
staff on forms provided by the department. Applications for interior conversions to
single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi -family dwelling units located in
a special development district (SDD) pursuant to this section shall also be allowed
without amending the GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA
restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 119 of 1
the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. -the
h„ n,ay of example ali
nd not mitation the written approval of the other properi„
, ,
owner, owners or applicable owners' assoniation oho// he required. If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application. The planning staff will review
the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the
interior conversion section. Submittals shall include:
12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE):
E. Procedure:
Application; Content: Application shall be made on forms provided by the
department of community development. if the proper)„ is owned in nommon
or C par,,-eis in duplex subdiWs�ns, by way of exa pie, and not limitation, the
w4tten approval of the other propeo owner owners or applicable nn,nero'
,
a000niation shag he required. If the property is owned in common
(condominium association) and/or located within a Development Lot, the
written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners'
association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include:
12-16-2: APPLICATION; CONTENTS:
Application for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by the
administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other
material containing the following information:
Fln
h„ n,o„ of example and nott l�tatF�tnhe wr �other prope
owner owners or applicable ow-ners' a000niation shall he required. If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord.
24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 1: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 1: Ord.
16(1978) § 4(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.200)
12-17-2: APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The
Town of Vail Page 5
October 4, 2016 - Page 120 of 1
application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material
containing the following information:
G.
owner, liowners nr annnahle owners' association shall be e-quirorl If the property is
owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a
Development Lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or
applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form
of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord.
24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 2: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 2: Ord.
8(1973) § 19.200)
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning
and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a
change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following:
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations by clearly informing potential applicants and property owners of the
circumstances requiring joint property owner sign off. This text amendment will codify
the actual practice of the Community Development Department, and helps to improve
the clarity of the code. This text amendment meets the following purposes of the zoning
regulations:
General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and
enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of high quality.
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic
values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community.
Town of Vail Page 6
October 4, 2016 - Page 121 of 1
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the
town. This change will establish clear and consistent language in the Vail Town Code.
Following are some of the relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan:
Goal #1: Vail will continue to manage growth, maintaining a balance between
the bulk and mass of residential, commercial and recreational uses to ensure
the quality, character, diversity and vitality of the town by ensuring that all
regulatory and advisory land use documents are updated and current,
providing ease of compliance and enforcement, and uniformity among
regulatory and advisory documents.
• Goal #3: Ensure fairness and consistency in the development review
process.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
The amendment is in response to a lack of clarity within existing regulations. As a
matter of practice, the Community Development Department has required joint property
owner sign offs on applications where properties share development and/or design
standards. The proposed text amendment will codify this practice.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
The proposed text amendment provides clear terminology within the Vail Town Code so
that regulations are consistent with municipal development objectives.
As a result, staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
Town of Vail Page 7
October 4, 2016 - Page 122 of 1
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VI of this
memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11:
Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area,
12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property owner
submittal requirement. (PEC16-0031)
If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the
proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendment to
Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-14: Supplemental
Regulations, 12-15: Gross Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use
Permits and 12-17: Variances related to the joint property owner submittal
requirement. (PEC16-0031)."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed
Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vl of the
Community Development Department memorandum dated September 12, 2016,
and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Town of Vail Page 8
October 4, 2016 - Page 123 of 1
TOW?J OF ffl1 '
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 12, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan
Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Brian Stockmar
Absent: Kirk Hansen
2. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish
Special Development District No. 41 (Marriott Residence Inn), pursuant to Section
12- 9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
development of a limited service lodge and deed restricted employee housing units
and a conditional use permit for public or commercial parking facilities or structures,
located at 1783 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0030).
Applicant: Vail Hotel Owner ESHV, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Matt Panfil
Action: Continue to October 10, 2016
Motion: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0
Matt Panfil, Town Planner, provided an overview of the request as well as a
refresher of the SDD review process. Project includes 170 Limited Service Lodge
Units (LSLUs) and 113 Employee Housing Units (EHUs).Staff concerns include
building height, more detail on parking operations and tandem parking spaces,
mixed-use parking credit, retaining wall heights, lack of porte-cochere, impacts on
views, ADA parking spaces, drive aisle width with deliveries, car impacts on lower
level EHUs. The applicant requests, and staff recommends, the meeting be tabled to
the October 10, 2016 meeting to allow more time for consideration of the request by
the public.
Chairman Rediker opened the meeting to questions by the Commission for staff.
There were no questions of staff.
Dominic Mauriello, applicant, provided an introduction and overview of the proposed
project.
October 4, 2016 - Page 124 of 1
Peter Dumon, representative of the Harp Group of Chicago, introduced himself and
provided opening remarks on behalf of the development team.
Mauriello provided a presentation of the project including: site history, neighborhood
context, hotel operations, rental employee housing units, deviations from the
underlying zoning, and his anticipated schedule.
Rediker opened the meeting to questions by the Commission of the applicant.
Pratt: Will the hotel laundry be done on site?
Mauriello: Yes.
Gillette: What will the decks look like? Will they allow outside storage of bikes, etc.?
Dumon: The decks will be slim. Storage for bikes and sporting goods equipment
will likely be accommodated in the parking area. There will be no outside storage on
decks.
Rediker: What consideration was given to snow storage and roof shedding of snow?
Mauriello: Deferred to next meeting where greater detail will be provided by the
project architect.
Rediker: What provisions for visitors/guest parking is being made in light of the
residential component of the project?
Mauriello: Believes enough parking is being provided to accommodate all the uses
proposed due to the parking surplus.
Gillette: How will the hotel breakfast operate?
Dumon: Marriott Residence Inn brand standard is complimentary breakfast for hotel
guests only. They do not serve lunch or dinner, but do provide late afternoon hors
d'oeuvres at a Manager's Reception.
Rediker: Asked about loading and delivery for use by the residents of the EHUs.
Mauriello: There are not many expected day to day deliveries, but a majority will
load from the interior of the garage.
Rediker: Will EHUs be furnished?
Mauriello: No
October 4, 2016 - Page 125 of 1
Gillette: Asked about the retaining wall heights and locations.
Mauriello: Clarified the location and heights of all retaining walls.
Rediker: What is the average height on the north side of the building?
Mauriello: About 5 stories on the rear. Referred to a PowerPoint slide.
Gillette: Asked to see additional modeling to get a better perspective of heights.
Lockman: Asked about the multi -use credit for parking.
Mauriello: Believes the credit is valid as applied to this project.
Lockman: Asked for more details about the front entrance and exits.
Mauriello: Referred to a PowerPoint slide to illustrate the turning movements and
plans.
Gillette: Who is requiring the turn lane from frontage road?
Mauriello: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Gillette: Does the garage accommodate a pickup truck?
Mauriello: Yes.
George Ruther: Addressed the frontage road plans and intersection as it pertains to
review and approval by CDOT.
Gillette: Asked about the frontage road recreation path and connection to Buffehr
Creek Road.
Mauriello: Addressed the plans and trail system east to west.
Rediker: Asked about the EHUs and eligibility and pricing for rental rates.
Mauriello: Reviewed the anticipated deed restriction. If there is not enough interest
from locals, the units would likely become market rate apartments.
Rediker closed questions from the commission and opened public comment.
Public comment:
Chris Burns, Buffehr Creek Townhomes condo association: The proposal is too
dense and too big. Parking and access are inadequate, may lead to backups on
October 4, 2016 - Page 126 of 1
road if no other access into garage. The height is too tall and impacts the neighbors,
especially at the west end. The setbacks are inadequate. Loading and delivery is
inadequate and will impact adjacent roadways. This is not a workable plan. Where
will workers park? How will this be built without impacting neighbors?
Randy Guererro, Mustang Townhomes: Addressed the compatibility, character and
visual integrity of the neighborhood and does not feel the project satisfies those
requirements. Believes the applicant's request for real estate transfer tax waiver is
inappropriate. Believes the previously approved building plan (Marriott Residence
Inn) is acceptable but not the proposed project with EHUs. Believes the applicant is
too vague with details and liberally interpreting the codes with the proposal. I have a
Gore Range view; will that be impacted? Where will vent fans go, at rear toward
neighbors? Northeast corner is going into setbacks. Stay within current codes and
guidelines.
Pratt: Asked staff the status of the previous approval.
Panfil: The previous approval has lapsed.
Barbara Brundin, 1995 Chamonix Lane: Agree with comments made so far.
Proponent of a new West Vail Master Plan; come up with a vision for this area.
Believes the project is too big and dense. She understands the need for employee
housing, but it is too much in this location and there is not enough outdoor open
space for the residents. Believes the hotel use and the employee housing are
incompatible.
Deena DiCorpo, President of the association for 1880 Meadow Ridge Road:
Concerned that the project is too big for the neighborhood.
Gary Weiss: Appealed to the PEC not to violate the forty-eight foot (48') height limit,
citing his belief that the project is too tall.
Mark Levine, Capstone Townhomes: The project is too big and too tall. It will
negatively affect the neighborhood.
Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership: He is not currently taking a stance on the
project, but stated that workforce housing is critical. Mid-level and accessible (non -
luxury) lodging option is very important to Vail.
Andy Gunion, Hillside Condos: Believes the current proposal is too big and out of
character with the neighborhood. The project does not set a good precedent for
neighborhood scale. He supports each project independent of each other, but not
combined on one small site. Suggests the Town work with the developer to put just
employee housing on the site instead.
October 4, 2016 - Page 127 of 1
Steve Lindstrom, Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA): Believes the applicant has
responded to community needs for employee housing, lodging, and parking. The
VLHA supports the project.
George Ruther: Directed the PEC's attention to letters received by community
development staff for the record.
Rediker: Asked that the letters be included with the next meeting packet for more
time to review.
Rediker: Closed public comment.
Stockmar: Concerned with some aspects of the project but needs more time to
study the proposal.
Gillette: Agrees with commissioner Stockmar. Believes that perspective photos from
behind the property are critical. Need to see that there will be adequate storage.
Requested more details about widening the frontage road. A construction staging
plan and the location of exterior mechanical equipment are also important to see.
Pratt: Disclosed his firm was involved with a prior applicant on the Roost site, and is
also trying to resurrect another housing project from 2008 on a different site and may
have to recuse himself if that project moves forward. Elements of the plan he likes
include: the lodging, EHUs, tandem parking, and underground parking in
setbacks/site coverage. He is generally not in favor of establishing an SDD unless a
public benefit or better design is provided as a result. He does not favor the design
as currently proposed. The building massing is too large without enough plane
breaks. Asked staff about deed restrictions for Eagle County residents. Question
answered by George Ruther, who cited the rules of eligibility. Pratt favors a plan
that includes housing for Eagle County employees only if demand can be met. He
feels the project is otherwise too large and too dense.
Kurz: Concurred with Commissioner Pratt. He believes the project would have a
negative impact on the neighborhood. He requested more details on parking,
storage, traffic, etc. Believes the design of the facade does not include enough
articulation. Believes the applicant should work more with the neighborhood.
Lockman: Asked for clarification about formerly approved plan that lapsed. Question
answered by Panfil. Mauriello clarified that the former project was approved and
expired in order for the client to help address workforce housing. Lockman believes
the site coverage is OK as interpreted. He has concerns with the substantial amount
of traffic and associated impacts to the N. Frontage Road. He likes the concept of
employee housing, but believes the building height is the biggest concern.
Rediker: The bulk and mass of the building and lot density are too much. He
appreciates the applicant's unique approach to address employee housing, but the
October 4, 2016 - Page 128 of 1
current proposal does not work. He would like to see better design elevations, more
detailed perspective of height as viewed from vicinity, and for the applicant to
address loading and delivery separately for the hotel use and residences. EHUs
should be ensured to go to locals and not second homeowners. He also would like
to see the location of exterior equipment and venting and how those would impact
views of the neighborhood. He has concerns with commercial laundry machine
venting as well. He also wants to see a plan for snow shedding from the roof and
snow storage and management. A construction staging plan is needed. A future site
visit is warranted.
Gillette: The applicant should superimpose comparative imagery to give better
perspective as to the proposed building. Compare to other large buildings on N.
Frontage Road, such as Simba Run and Vail Run.
3. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions, 12-11: Design Review, 12-15: Gross
Residential Floor Area, 12-16: Conditional Use Permits and 12-17: Variances related
to the joint property owner submittal requirement. (PEC16-0031)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence provided an overview of the proposed prescribed
regulations amendment.
Chairman Rediker opened the meeting to questions for Staff:
Stockmar: How has the lack of a definition created uncertainty and has it led to
arbitrary decisions or created inconsistency?
Spence: More of a clarification.
Pratt: Asked for clarification about the terminology in its application.
Spence: Provided example to illustrate its application.
Gillette: Asked for clarification when it is in an SDD.
Spence: Provided SDD example to address the question.
Opened public hearing. No public testimony.
October 4, 2016 - Page 129 of 1
Commissioner comment:
Lockman: Agrees with amendment.
Kurz: OK with the proposal.
Pratt: Not comfortable with the proposal, but if town staff finds it necessary, then is
OK with it.
Gillette: Does not agree with a neighbor having to approve adjacent property
owner's project. Thinks the bigger policy issue should be fixed.
Stockmar: Generally OK with the clarification.
Rediker: Asked why "driveways" is not included in definition of "development lot."
Asked to clarify whether the language is intended to now apply only to structures.
Otherwise feels the modification is beneficial and provides clarity.
Gillette: Asked about notification requirements for DRB applications.
Stockmar: Asked whether this affects covenants.
Spence: No. Those are private, civil agreements.
Gillette: Perhaps the process should involve co -applicants, rather than adjacent
owner sign -off.
4. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
Amendment to Sections 12-2: Definitions and 14-10: Design Review Standards and
Guidelines related to the regulation of greenhouses and hoop houses/cold frames.
(PEC16-0032)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve with condition.
Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 4-2-0
(Stockmar, Gillette opposed)
Condition:
1. Staff shall make the Town Council aware of the concerns expressed by
individual PEC members.
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence provided an overview of the proposed prescribed
regulations amendment through a PowerPoint presentation with examples.
October 4, 2016 - Page 130 of 1
Questions for staff:
Pratt: Do the changes allow a greenhouse be separated from the main house?
Spence: Code currently provides for attached structures such as an attached
sunroom. Provided language from code.
Pratt: Allows lighting and electrical?
Spence: Yes
Lockman: Could someone grow cannabis?
Spence: No, though marijuana grows are prohibited in another part of the code.
Rediker: Do hoop houses and greenhouses have to meet setbacks?
Spence: They have to meet specified setback standards.
Gillette: Feels cold frames should be more tightly regulated subject to design
review.
Stockmar: How many situations are there with hoop/green houses to warrant the
amendment?
Spence: Not often.
Stockmar: Perhaps cold frames should not be allowed.
Rediker: Do hoop houses and cold frames go together? Or differentiated?
Spence: The town code does not have language either way presently.
Gillette: Hoop houses and cold frames should be subject to and approved by DRB.
Neighbor should not have to look at these uses.
Stockmar: Doesn't feel these uses are attractive due to the transparency of the
inside use. Should not be visible to neighbors.
Public comment: No public testimony.
Commissioner comments:
Stockmar: Vail character is important and hoop houses and green houses are not
compatible. The structures are not befitting of our community.
October 4, 2016 - Page 131 of 1
Gillette: Agrees with Commissioner Stockmar. He is OK with green houses. Cold
frames should be subject to design review.
Pratt: Shares concerns of the commissioners, but respects people's property rights.
All should be subject to design review. Feels the variety of translucent materials
could be a problem. Concerned with internal lighting and perhaps no internal lighting
should be permitted.
Kurz: Believe the town should allow for these uses, but is concerned with how we
control the uses and to what degree. Otherwise in favor of allowing the practice.
Lockmar: In favor of allowing the practice and the Town should encourage local
agriculture. In favor of the proposal.
Rediker: Generally favors the proposal. Could language be imposed to include a
mandate for better materials and ensure better upkeep? Prefers design review but
with waived application fees and expedited application process.
Pratt: If subject to design review, then neighbor sign off is necessary when at a
duplex. Affirmed by staff.
Gillette: Pratt wants lighting removed, Stockmar wants screening from adjacent
neighbors property added. Rediker design review fees waived.
Stockmar: Perhaps the PEC should continue the application for now. There is too
much inconsistency among commissioners.
Kurz: Suggest staff come back to the PEC with the suggestions discussed.
Lockman made motion to approve and Kurz seconded. Pratt suggested an
amendment condition that staff relays the PEC's concerns to council. Lockman
amended his motion accordingly and Kurz seconded.
5. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail
Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the
Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract
D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019)
Table to October 24, 2016
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
Action: Table to October 24, 2016
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
October 4, 2016 - Page 132 of 1
6. Approval of Minutes
August 22, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0
7. Informational Update
Beavers and the Habitat They Create - Pete Wadden - 20 min.
Watershed Education Coordinator Pete Wadden provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
8. Adjournment
Action: Adjourn
Motion: Kurz
Second: Gillette
Vote: 6-0-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and
order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at
what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970)
479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with
48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD),
for information.
Community Development Department
October 4, 2016 - Page 133 of 1
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Title
5 of the Vail Town Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 15 Concerning the Regulation
of Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Systems (DRONES)
PRESENTER(S): Craig Bettis, Commander, VPD
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance
No. 21, 2016 upon second reading
BACKGROUND: Unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS"), commonly known as drones, are devices
that are used or are intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. The Town Council
finds that recreational UAS, when operated within the Town and particularly in populated areas,
present an appreciable risk to public safety in the air and to persons and property on the ground.
The Town Council, pursuant to its authority to protect and secure the public health, safety and
welfare of its citizens, desires to enact regulations for the use and operation of recreational UAS in
the Town.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016, Amend Code for Use and Operation of UAS
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 134 of 1
TOWN OF VAIL5;'
To: Town Council
From: Dwight Henninger, Police Chief
Craig Bettis, Commander
Date: 09/13/16
Subject: Drones
Memorandum
This memorandum and fact sheet addresses the Town's authority and
position to adopt regulations for the use and operation of Unmanned Aircraft
Systems ("UAS"), commonly known as "drones."
In considering what has been discussed thus far with council regarding
the town's position, congruent with the most recent FAA regulations and taking
into account hearing from a very small segment of the town population during
public comment. The following facts, map and ordinance amending the Town
Code to include Chapter 15: The Regulation of Recreational Unmanned Aircraft
Systems is being recommended for adoption.
FACTS
• The Town cannot regulate commercial drones.
• The Town can regulate recreational drones.
• Commercial drones are drones used for:
o crop monitoring/inspection;
o research and development;
o educational/academic uses;
o power-line/pipeline inspection in hilly or mountainous terrain;
o antenna inspections;
o aiding certain rescue operations;
o bridge inspections;
o aerial photography; and
October 4, 2016 - Page 135 of 1
o wildlife nesting area evaluations.
• Commercial drones, under FAA rules, must:
o be registered with the FAA;
o be operated or have the operation directly supervised by a licensed pilot with a remote
pilot certificate issued by the FAA;
o yield to the right-of-way to all aircraft;
o not operate directly over people not directly participating in the operation and not
under a safe cover such as a covered structure or a stationary vehicle;
o fly below 400 feet or, if higher than 400 feet, remain within 400 feet radius of a
structure and not more than 400 feet above the structure's uppermost limit;
o maintain visual line of sight;
0 operate under minimum weather visibility of 3 miles;
o fly during daylight or twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes after
official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti -collision lighting; and
o not operate in Class B, C, or D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface
area of Class E airspace designated for an airport without prior air traffic control
authorization.
• Recreational drones, under the Town's ordinance, must:
o be flown below a maximum altitude of 400 feet above the ground;
o weigh no more than 55 pounds at the time of operation, inclusive of equipment,
payload and fuel;
o be flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the drone;
o not be operated over any person not directly involved in the operation;
o not be flown near pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, roadways, parking lots,
playgrounds, stadiums, sporting events, festivals or other open air assembly of
persons, or areas or special events subject to an FAA notice of temporary flight
restriction;
o remain clear of and not interfere with manned aircraft operations or other drones;
o be operated during daylight hours only;
o not be operated from a moving vehicle or other aircraft;
Town of Vail Page 2
October 4, 2016 - Page 136 of 1
o be operated in compliance with all applicable law, including any regulations adopted
by the FAA;
o not be operated in a reckless or careless manner so as to endanger the health, safety or
well-being of persons or property; and
o not be operated in pedestrian areas of Vail Village, Lionshead Village, including the
town owned parking structures in both Vail and Lionshead, Ford Park and the area
immediately surrounding the Vail Valley Medical Center Heli -Port; provided that
o The Town's drone regulations to not apply to law enforcement or emergency services
operations.
• All recreational drone operators 13 years of age and older must register with the FAA if
any of the drones they operate outdoors weigh more than 0.55 pounds and less than 55
pounds.
In addition, for Event Commercial use the Town of Vail Event Review
Committee (ERC) has enacted within the permitting process the following
application questions: Ref. Step 16
Step 16 Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS/Drones) Commercial Use
Does the Commercial UAS operator have a valid pilot license Yes or No
Is the operator/pilot Insured and Registered? Yes or No
The Town of Vail reserves the authority to authorize a "No Drone Zone" based on certain events
that meet a safety and security criteria.
Training
It is essential that whoever is operating your entity's drone knows how to do so safely and properly.
Following the drone manufacturer's guidelines is an important first step.
Public notification
Personal privacy must be respected at all times. Whenever you plan on using a drone for any
significant length of time, and it will be seen by the public, you should provide advance notice,
including the intent of the drone's use.
Inspection and maintenance
Cover everything from pre- and post flight inspections, maintenance schedules, and operator
qualification testing to verification, renewal, and any other municipality -specific components that
ensure.
Town of Vail Page 3
October 4, 2016 - Page 137 of 1
Town of Vail Page 4
October 4, 2016 - Page 138 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 21
SERIES 2016
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY
THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW CHAPTER 15 CONCERNING
THE REGULATION OF RECREATIONAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS (DRONES)
WHEREAS, unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS"), commonly known as drones,
are devices that are used or are intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard
pilot;
WHEREAS, there has been considerable increase in the use and popularity of
recreational UAS;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that recreational UAS, when operated within
the Town and particularly in populated areas, present an appreciable risk to public
safety in the air and to persons and property on the ground; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, pursuant to its authority to protect and secure the
public health, safety and welfare of its citizens, desires to enact regulations for the use
and operation of recreational UAS in the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Title 5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of
a new Chapter 15 to read as follows:
Chapter 15
RECREATIONAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
5-15-1: DEFINITIONS:
For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) means an aircraft, powered
aerial vehicle, or other device without a human pilot aboard, the flight of
which is controlled either autonomously by onboard computers or by the
remote control of a pilot operator on the ground or in another vehicle or
aircraft, and all associated equipment and apparatus, used for a hobby or
recreational purpose.
FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration.
OPERATE means to use, fly, launch, land, employ, control or engage the
functionality of a UAS in any manner.
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 139 of 1
TOWN AIRSPACE includes all airspace above the territorial boundaries of
the Town, to the full extent that such airspace can legally be regulated by
the Town.
VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT means the UAS must be visible at all times to
the operator of the UAS, the operator must use his or her own natural
vision to observe the UAS, and persons other than the operator may not
be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. The
operator's own natural vision may include vision corrected by standard
eyeglasses or contact lenses.
5-15-2: SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:
It is unlawful to operate a UAS within the Town or in Town Airspace,
except in conformance with the following:
A. The UAS shall be flown below a maximum altitude of four hundred
(400) feet above the ground.
B. The UAS shall weigh no more than fifty-five (55) pounds at the time
of operation, inclusive of equipment, payload and fuel.
C. The UAS shall be flown within the visual line of sight of the person
operating the UAS.
D. The UAS shall not be operated over any person not directly
involved in the operation.
E. The UAS shall not be flown near pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists,
roadways, parking lots, playgrounds, stadiums, sporting events, festivals
or other open air assembly of persons, or areas or special events subject
to an FAA notice of temporary flight restriction.
F. The UAS shall remain clear of and not interfere with manned
aircraft operations or other UAS.
G. The UAS shall be operated during daylight hours only.
H. The UAS shall not be operated from a moving vehicle or other
aircraft.
I. The UAS shall be operated in compliance with all applicable law,
including any regulations adopted by the FAA.
5-15-3: RECKLESS OR CARELESS OPERATION:
It is unlawful to operate a UAS in a reckless or careless manner so as to
endanger the health, safety or well-being of persons or property. A person
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 140 of 1
shall not operate a UAS if he or she knows or has reason to know of any
physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of
the UAS, or if he or she knows or has reason to know that the UAS is not
in proper working order.
5-15-4: RESTRICTED AREAS:
A. It is unlawful to operate a UAS in pedestrian areas of Vail Village,
Lionshead Village and Ford Park.
B. It is unlawful to operate a UAS in any area in the Town in which the
UAS would interfere with a helicopter accessing or leaving the Vail Valley
Medical Center.
5-15-5: USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/EMERGENCY SERVICES:
Nothing in this Chapter is intended to prohibit the use of a UAS for lawful
purposes and in a lawful manner by any law enforcement agency of the
Town or other local, state or federal government, or emergency services
personnel.
5-15-6: VIOLATION AND PENALTY:
A. It is unlawful to violate any provision of this Chapter. A person who
is convicted of violating any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as
provided in Section 1-4-1 of this Code.
B. In addition to the penalty set forth in subsection A, the Town many
impound any UAS that is operated in a careless or reckless manner, in the
interest of public safety.
Section 2. Severability. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby
declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3. Retroactivity. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code
as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of
the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
Section 4. Repeal. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts
thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency.
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 141 of 1
This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance,
or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 20th day of September, 2016
and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 4th day of
October, 2016, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this 4th day of October, 2016.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 142 of 1
TOWN OF VAIP
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016, Second Reading, An Ordinance Repealing and
Reenacting Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code, Concerning Smoking
PRESENTER(S): Dwight Henninger, Police Chief and Matt Mire, Town Attorney
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance
No. 22, 2016 upon second reading.
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Colorado legislature passed the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act,
C.R.S. § 25-14-201, et seq. (the "CCIAA"), which provides that a municipality may enact, adopt,
and enforce smoking regulations that are no less stringent than state law. The Town Council
desires to repeal and reenact Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code to comply with the CCIAA
and to regulate electronic smoking devices.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 143 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 22
SERIES 2016
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 5
OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE, CONCERNING SMOKING
WHEREAS, in 2006, the Colorado legislature passed the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act,
C.R.S. § 25-14-201, of seq. (the "CCIAX), which provides that a municipality may enact, adopt,
and enforce smoking regulations that are no less stringent than state law; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to repeal and reenact Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the
Vail Town Code to comply with the CCIAA and to regulate electronic smoking devices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its
entirety and reenacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 4
SMOKING
5-4-1: DEFINITIONS:
ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE: An electric or battery-operated device, the
use of which resembles conventional smoking, which can be used to deliver
substances, including without limitation nicotine, tobacco, or marijuana, to the
person using such device. Electronic smoking device includes without limitation
an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, pipe, or hookah, but does not include any
product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a drug or medical
device that is used in accordance with its purpose.
EMPLOYEE: Any person who is employed by any employer.
EMPLOYER: Any person, partnership or corporation, including a municipal
corporation, who employs the services of any person.
ENCLOSED AREA: All space between a floor and ceiling which is enclosed on
all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of doors or passageways) which
extend from floor to ceiling, including all space therein screened by partitions
which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid or similar structures.
ENTRYWAY: The front or main doorway leading into a building.
MINOR: A person under eighteen (18) years of age.
NICOTINE PRODUCT: An electronic device or any component thereof that can
be used to deliver nicotine to the person inhaling from the device, including,
without limitation, an electronic cigarette, cigar, cigarillo, hookah, pipe or nicotine
vaporizer; and nicotine or other chemical liquids, extracts, and oils intended to be
used therein.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 144 of 1
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Any enclosed area under the control of a public or
private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of
employment.
PUBLIC PLACE: Any enclosed area in which the general public is permitted,
including without limitation: convention halls, covered parking structures, public
or private educational facilities, childcare facilities, adult daycare or medical or
healthcare facilities, hospitals, gymnasiums, post offices, guest rooms in
commercial lodging establishments, laundromats, performance halls, polling
places, professional offices, public transportation facilities, taxis, reception areas,
restaurants, bars, retail food production and marketing/grocery establishments,
retail service establishments, retail stores, indoor sports arenas, bowling alleys,
billiard or pool halls, and theaters; every room, chamber or place of meeting or
public assembly; all areas of an establishment that are open to, or customarily
used by, the general public, including without limitation elevators, restrooms,
lobbies, reception areas, hallways, waiting rooms and other common areas in
apartment buildings, condominiums, trailer parks, retirement facilities, nursing
homes and other multiple unit residential or commercial lodging establishments;
and any private residence when in use as a child care, adult daycare, or health
care facility.
RETAIL TOBACCO STORE: A retail store utilized primarily for the sale of
tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is
merely incidental.
SMOKING: The lighting of any cigarette, cigar, pipe, or the activation of an
electronic smoking device, or the possession of any lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe
or activated electronic smoking device, regardless of its composition.
TOBACCO PRODUCT: A product that contains tobacco or is derived from
tobacco and is intended to be ingested, inhaled, smoked, placed in oral or nasal
cavities, or applied to the skin of an individual, including, without limitation,
cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, kreteks, bidis, hookah, and pipes; granulated, plug
cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff and snuff flour,
snus, plug and twist, fine cut, and other chewing or dipping tobacco; shorts,
refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings, and seepings of tobacco; and any other kinds
and forms of tobacco, prepared in such manner as to be suitable for both
chewing or for smoking in a cigarette, pipe, or otherwise, or both for chewing and
smoking.
WORK AREA: An area in a place of employment where one or more employees
are routinely assigned and perform services for or on behalf of their employer.
5-4-2: SMOKING PROHIBITED
A. Public Places. Smoking is prohibited in any public place.
B. Entryways: Smoking is prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any entryway.
C. Outdoor eating areas. Smoking it prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any
outdoor eating area.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 145 of 1
D. Posted Areas. Smoking is prohibited in designated "no smoking" areas
as set forth in Sections 5-4-3 and 5-4-5.
E. Other Areas. Smoking is prohibited in those areas where smoking is
prohibited by state law, fire code regulations, or other regulations of the Town.
5-4-3: SMOKING PERMITTED:
A. Smoking is permitted in the following places:
1. Private homes except if any such home or vehicle is being used
for childcare or daycare or if a private vehicle is being used for the public
transportation of children;
2. Private automobiles;
3. Limousines under private hire;
4. Commercial lodging including without limitation hotel or motel
rooms rented to one or more guests and designated as smoking rooms;
provided, however, that not more than twenty-five (25%) percent of the rooms
rented in a hotel, or motel may be so designated;
5. Retail tobacco stores;
6. A place of employment that is not open to the public and that is
under the control of an employer that employs three (3) or fewer employees;
7. Smoking by performers as part of a stage production at a theater;
and
8. Areas of assisted living facilities that are designated for smoking
for residents; that are fully enclosed and ventilated and to which access is
restricted to the residents and their guests.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, an owner, operator,
manager or other person who controls an establishment, facility or grounds
described in this Section may declare the entire establishment, facility or grounds
smoke-free.
C. In the case of employers who own facilities otherwise exempted under
this Section, each such employer shall provide a smoke-free work area for each
employee requesting not to have to breathe environmental tobacco smoke.
Every employee shall have a right to work in an area free of environmental
tobacco smoke.
5-4-4: DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION UNLAWFUL:
It is unlawful for an employer, proprietor or person in charge of a public place or
place of employment regulated under this Chapter to discharge, discriminate
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 146 of 1
against or in any manner retaliate against any person who requests the
designation of "no smoking" areas or enforcement of "no smoking" areas.
5-4-6: MINORS:
A. It is unlawful for a minor to possess, consume, or use a tobacco product
or nicotine product in the Town.
B. It is unlawful for a minor to purchase, obtain or attempt to purchase or
obtain a tobacco product or nicotine product in the Town by misrepresentation of
age or by any other method.
C. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly furnish to a minor in the Town, by
gift, sale or any other means, a tobacco product or nicotine product.
D. It is a rebuttable presumption that the substance within a package or
container is a tobacco product or nicotine product if the package or container has
affixed to it a label which identifies the package or container as containing a
tobacco or nicotine product.
E. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this Section that the
person furnishing the tobacco product or nicotine product was presented with
and reasonably relied upon a document which identified the minor receiving the
tobacco product or nicotine product as being eighteen (18) years of age or older.
5-4-7: VIOLATION AND PENALTY:
A. It is unlawful to violate any provision of this Chapter.
B. The penalty for a violation of this Chapter shall be as provided in Section
1-4-1 of this Code.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this
ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of
the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared invalid.
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this ordinance,
shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior
to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 147 of 1
Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall
not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 20th day of September, 2016 and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the 4th day of October, 2016, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 4th
day of October, 2016.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2016
October 4, 2016 - Page 148 of 1
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment at 7:55 pm
TOWN OF VAR'
October 4, 2016 - Page 149 of 1