Loading...
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