Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0627 PECTOWN RF��" PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June27, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Kirk Hansen, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Brian Stockmar Absent: Ludwig Kurz and Chairman John Rediker A request for comment regarding a proposed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Titles 5 and 14, Chapters 5- 11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction, and Section 14- 10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, to include other forest insects and diseases in addition to the mountain pine beetle, to expand the definition of wildfire fuels and to relocate standards related to roofing material specifications from the Vail Town Code to the Building Code. 45 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Jonathan Spence Spence — The PEC does not have recommending authority over Titles 5 and 14, but the Fire Department is presenting the proposed updates to the PEC for comment. Due to recent revisions by the Fire Department, staff has no specific concerns with the proposed changes. Mark Novak, Fire Chief — Changes are based on direction from Town Council more than one year ago. Primarily, the changes are intended to broaden regulations from beyond just mountain pine beetle concerns, on which the original ordinance was mostly focused. Pratt opened for public comment. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association — Asked if the changes are oriented towards removing defective landscaping and does it require the removal of healthy landscaping? He is also concerned with giving regulatory power to an administrative division with no appeal process. Pratt closed public comment. Lockman — Why is there a switch from the term non-combustible to the term ignition resistant? Cada — Non-combustible limits items to rocks. Ignition resistant term comes from model codes. Lockman —Why removal of some of the technical language? Cada — It has been moved to the building code. Lockman — Proposed changes make sense. Hansen — No distinction between commercial and residential property owner? Spence — No. Hansen — Has the town gone through the process of court ordered abatement? Novak — Not to his knowledge. Hansen — Asked about xeriscaping. Novak — Cada has been working on developing landscape guidelines. Gillette — Concerned about review process. Definition of wildfire fuel is vague and there is no citizen board or town council review. Novak — It has been discussed and they will give the idea further consideration Gillette — Reemphasized the need for an ability to appeal. Spence — The intent of the abatement program is for imminent threats to life and property. Gillette — The definition is too broad to lack the ability to appeal. Either tighten the definition or incorporate an appeal process. Stockmar — Concurs that there needs to be an appeal process, but it should be an expedited process. He is in favor of mechanisms to find a fair and reasonable approach to assisting landowners in removing vegetation. Pratt — Agrees with most of the proposed changes, but also believes there should be an appeal process. Regarding roofs, he expressed concern about duplex owners not agreeing to change their roof at the same time. Spence — The roof replacement process for both sides of the duplex is the same as it has been in the recent past. Pratt — Is concerned about forced situations where an adjacent owner is unable to immediately change their roof. Stockmar — Leaving the term "may" instead of "shall" makes the requirement appealable but still gives some review authority. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a picnic shelter located at 1600 South Frontage Road West (Donovan Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0023) 5 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Brian Garner Action: N/A Motion: Second: Vote: Garner — This item has been staff approved, but is on the agenda for informational purposes. Commission is not required to take action, but may call up this item, if needed. The master plan for Donovan Park includes the proposed shelter. Stockmar — It makes sense, but has there been a history of objection? Garner — Based on past community surveys, a shelter was listed as a top priority. Hansen — Asked about the architectural style. Garner — The architecture and materials will match the existing structures on site. 4. 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). 60 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Action: Continued Motion: Gillette Second: Hansen Vote: 5-0 Neubecker — Summarized the previous meetings at which GRFA was discussed, including an appeal of staff interpretation on May 23, 2016. The intent is to make the code clear based upon the PEC's decision to overturn the administrative decision on the appeal. That change states that in a duplex, each dwelling unit is its own structure, and each is entitled to one (1) lowest level GRFA deduction. Also, the party wall is determined by the existing grade. Referenced graphics and outlined that calculating the grade of the party wall is a new difficulty associated with the changes. Demonstrated how the grade of the party wall will be determined for future calculations. Gillette — Believes that stating there is only one (1) lowest level is incorrect and the term lowest level needs to be redefined. Expressed his belief that staff is wrong. Neubecker — Potential consequences include issues with existing structures becoming nonconforming by this new measurement, due to dramatic grades with a significant difference between the dwelling units. Gillette — Are you eliminating the 6' level separation regulation? Neubecker —The code does not stipulate a 6' level separation regulation. Our goal is to codify the decision of the PEC, not to change or establish new policy. Gillette — Staff is not focusing on all of the reasons why the PEC upheld the previous appeal. Neubecker — Focusing on the decision of whether a duplex should count as one structure or two. Additional review of GRFA policy could occur later. Gillette — We should take the time to get GRFA right; we are not addressing the whole problem. Reemphasized his belief lowest level needs to be redefined. Neubecker — Referenced the new proposed language on page 4 of the staff report and stated that staff finds the proposal meets the necessary criteria for a code amendment and therefore recommends approval. Staff has received feedback from local architects supporting the changes. Pratt opened public comment. Ron Byrne — Confused as to the intent of the changes. Is it essentially applying the single-family rules to each duplex unit? Also, the walls are often not on the same plane. Rollie Kjesbo — Was part of the commission that developed the GRFA regulations. Was not aware that staff was not giving each unit credit for a lowest level, which was the intent of the commission. Disagreed with Gillette and stated that it was not the intent to allow for multiple lowest levels. Stated that a small "step" for a level was intended to be allowed, but they never discussed a specific height that constituted a new level. Is unsure how the party wall measurement will work. Hansen — Asked Kjesbo if he supports the proposed changes Kjesbo — Yes. Gillette — Asked if Kjesbo if he would recommend codifying the 6' level separation regulation. Kjesbo — Yes, but based on the lowest level only Stockmar — GRFA concept is confusing and only grows more confusing over time. It is time to really look at GRFA and how it should be defined and used. The proposed changes are a reasonable solution for the short term, but a long term solution is needed. Kjesbo — We intended to do that at one point, but at the time the Town Council was not supportive of completely reevaluating GRFA. Gillette — Suggested testing any recommended changes to the language. Reemphasized his belief that the term "lowest level" needs to be redefined. We are on the wrong track. Hansen — Agrees that each duplex unit should have its own lowest level. Would support a 6'-8' range in level separation to allow for structures to step up or down a hill. Agrees with measuring the party wall at existing grade. Lockman — Understanding the intent and history of the GRFA regulations is difficult. Agrees that each unit should have its own lowest level. Is concerned that the changes will make more non-compliant properties and is not sure the proposed language truly achieves what needs to be achieved. Pratt — We are here to codify and make existing policy more clear; the interpretation based on the decision to uphold the previous appeal. Does not think the intent was to exclude all subterranean floor area. Concern about ability to interpret original grade based on lack of information or surveys. Does not agree with calculating percentage based on the existing grade of the party wall. Recommends the calculation be based on the entire perimeter, but each side gets to apply the percent below grade. Gillette — Reemphasized that the term lowest level needs to be redefined to state that the level at which there is no other level below it. This will achieve good site planning and does not affect bulk or mass. Expressed his confidence that the proposed changes will not work. Lockman — Asked for clarification between original and existing grade and which would apply. Ruther — Clearly there is more work to be done, but for the purposes of codifying the decision to uphold the appeal, the changes proposed are to address the PEC's interpretation that each individual duplex unit have its own lowest level. Gillette — That is false. I voted to uphold the appeal because staff was incorrectly interpreting the code. Ruther — We need the consensus of the commission as to how to address the problem. It is our understanding that the appeal was upheld based on PEC's interpretation that each unit of a duplex has its own lowest level. To propose an alternative is not what the appellant was requesting. Hansen — The intent was that each unit be addressed individually, not collectively. Gillette — The motion that passed stated staff misinterpreted the code, but did not specify which part of code was being misinterpreted. Hansen —We spent a substantial amount of time stating that each duplex unit should be calculated individually. Ruther — If the decision was based on something else, staff needs to know. Gillette — At this point, he is not sure there is unified opinion among the commissioners. Stockmar — Suggested a compromise be found Gillette — If you used my definition of lowest level you would not need to define a duplex as two separate structures. Pratt — I am now more comfortable with measuring at the existing grade of the party wall. Hansen — Supports the changes as well. Is not comfortable with unlimited steps. Can we see a couple of examples? Ruther — Reiterated the purpose of the agenda item is to codify the PEC's decision that for GRFA purposes, each dwelling unit of a duplex has its own lowest level. 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 12-13-5, Employee Housing, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction 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 (PEC16-0025). 45 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro Action: N/A Motion: Second: Vote: Nazzaro — Town Council suggested that staff work with the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) to recommend changes to the fee in lieu regulations. He discussed some of the possibilities for changing the EHU Fee in lieu program. Since this memo was written, Council adopted an interim fee, based on 80% AMI, which raised the fee considerably. Previous fee was based on 120% AMI. Council also adopted a moratorium on payment of fees in lieu for whole units, but allowed payments of the fee for fractions of units remaining or required. Fee is based on 10% of new GRFA, or for commercial based on 20% of new employee generation. Original intent was for the fee in lieu to apply only to fractions of units. Council wanted to keep pace with inflation by raising the Administrative Fees. Council did not want to average back three years. The interim fee does not average the fees. Fees will be from the last year's County Assessor sales data. Fee is based on affordability gap for payments of mortgage, taxes, and HOA fees. Staff memo identifies some questions on what the goals for this program should be. Currently, Council has no discretion to say no to accepting a fee in lieu, rather than requiring a new EHU. Fee in lieu should be the option of last resort. Fee should be allowed for a specific purpose, but not just to eliminate an on-site unit. VLHA has had multiple discussions on these options. We are now looking for feedback from the PEC. Pratt — At the last meeting, there was a discussion of purchasing a deed restriction, rather than purchasing the real estate. Ruther — Town's objective is to get the deed restriction in place, regardless of if the real estate is purchased, or just the deed restriction is purchased. Stockmar — How is the fee in lieu used by the Town? Nazzaro — So far, it has not been used. There is about $2.83 million in the fund. Gillette — Town should advertise its willingness to buy deed restrictions from existing unit owners. If fee is higher, it will force people to provide units, and only use the fee for meeting the fraction remaining. Nazzaro —We believe Council should have discretion to say "no" to the payment of the fee in lieu. Ruther — Need to ask, what is the intent of the fee in lieu? Is it to raise revenue in order to build units? Or is intent to encourage developers to build units? Council would need certain criteria in order to deny the fee. Options 6, 7 and 8 should be the focus of the PEC today. Options 1-5 is more of a discussion for Council. Purpose of the fee is to fill the gap between what people can afford vs the market rate, not to provide enough money to build new units. On Option 8, we would like feedback on the criteria to determine feasibility. What options would need to be exhausted in order to accept a fee, if it's the option of last resort. Comments — Lockman — If we can build housing, we should do that. Council should have the discretion to determine when the fee is collected. Nazzaro — Large employers have more resources to address their employee generation impacts. We would like to determine criteria on when Council can accept the fee. Lockman — Large employers have such an impact on the community. It's hard to determine the criteria for accepting a fee as a last resort. Can't think of the criteria right now. There are already criteria in code, such as "better fit for the community for paying the fee". Hansen — Fee has not kept pace with market demands. Yes, Council should have discretion, Gillette — Keep it simple. You could create a market for deed restrictions. Town could create a program to sell deed restrictions. It could be set up like eBay, with an auction. That would create a market for deed restrictions. I have never understood why we are building EHUs in the most expensive sections of Town. Fee in lieu is a great program. You will get more units than you would at $3,000 per sq. ft. Stockmar — Bottom line, we need more housing. With only $2.4 million in the EHU fee in lieu fund, it shows that the program is not working well. We need the fee for the very small situations where only a fraction remains. When appropriate, we should require getting deed restrictions or getting new units building. Pratt — In favor of a fee in lieu, up to a point. But the fee takes the responsibility away from the developer and puts it on the Town. There needs to be some criteria for Council to consider. Council changes over time, so we need clear criteria. With only $2.4 million in the fund, shows that the program is not working. Fee should be based on the cost of construction. A marketplace could be developed for buying and selling deed restrictions. Hospital paid a fee in lieu, and they have resources to provide housing. They should not be allowed to just write a check. Requiring a fee for remodels can be overbearing, so scope of program should be limited. Fee in lieu should be option of last resort, for less than one unit. We are not charging enough for the fee, that's why we are not seeing units get built. Gillette — Will the $2.4 million be used to pay for the Chamonix project? Ruther - Yes Approval of Minutes June 13, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 5 Min. Action: Approve Motion: Lockman Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0 Informational Updates - Fleet Fuels and Water Usage 15 Min. - Mark Hoblitzell 34% reduction in electricity Water Use declined 34% Unleaded fuel use dropped 24% Diesel fuel use up by 7% Fleet fuel — Since 2006, 2% increase in GHG emissions due to fleet fuel use. Snow melting in village did not have a big impact on reducing fleet fuels. 5% total decline in CO2 use. Goal is 20%. Natural gas consumption is driving demands for CO2. Options include expanded renewable energy production; purchase renewable energy credits; Local offset programs Stockmar — Are their options for improving efficiency in snowmelt systems? Over time, we should see improvements in efficiency as boilers are replaced. Bertuglia — Efficiency is not the main issue; boilers require some idling to be ready. Pratt — Any options for heat recovery systems? See steam coming out of parking structure. Mark — Natural gas use has been fairly stable Project Re -Wild; Pete Wadden introduced the program and ideas to encourage private property owners to reintroduce stream bank stabilization and naturalization of vegetation. Public — private cost share is proposed. Money would come from the Restore the Gore Action Plan program. Limit 50% match, max $5,000. Discussed project goals, preventing erosion, restore native riparian vegetation, rehabilitate or create wetlands, incorporate best management practices, improve stream habitat, focus on high impact areas. Gillette — Home owners that would be willing to do this can probably afford to fix their property. Bertuglia — We are trying to encourage home owners to participate, even if they can afford to do work without the incentive. Pratt - $5,000 won't be enough to make some people jump. We should identify problem areas and request that owners fix it. Some owners may think about it, for some owners it may help. Others won't care. Need better examples than log wall cribbing. Stockmar — Town needs substantial education campaign, and needs to address its own property, too. Gillette — Identify the hot spots and get them fixed. - Transportation Plan Update 10 Min. —Tom Kassmel Town contracted with Felsberg, Holt and Ullevig to update Transportation Plan. Look at accident areas, safety at transit stops, and what recommended transportation improvements could be made. Transit Charrette on July 11 to work with transit operators, plus open house in the evening. Ideas from the charrette will be presented to Town Council. We don't expect to see major changes in traffic numbers. Mostly focus on transit and parking. - Complete Streets Update 20 Min. — Brian Garner Presentation on complete streets and forthcoming pedestrian improvements proposed for the Vail frontage roads. Lockman — Will new intersection crossings address the needs of visually impaired with audible warnings? Garner — That may be considered. Pratt — Would like to know how many people are hit by vehicles in Vail. Concerned that flashing lights won't work. There is already too much for the drivers to pay attention to. Streets are already too wide in places. Garner — Acknowledged. Stockmar — Town was designed to be a very limited access, limited car village. We need to look at ways to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic, and get back to the original design intent. Garner — Acknowledged. Adjournment Action: Adjourn Motion: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0 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 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF VAi� ` June 27, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 2. A request for comment regarding a proposed regulation amendment, pursuant to 45 Min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Titles 5 and 14, Chapters 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction, and Section 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, to include other forest insects and diseases in addition to the mountain pine beetle, to expand the definition of wildfire fuels and to relocate standards related to roofing material specifications from the Vail Town Code to the Building Code. Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to 5 Min. Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a picnic shelter located at 1600 South Frontage Road West (Donovan Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0023) Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Brian Garner 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations 60 Min. 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 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations 30 Min. Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction 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 (PEC16-0025). Applicant Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro 6. Approval of Minutes June 13, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 7. Informational Update Continued update of Town of Vail Utility Usage as it related to the Environmental 15 Min. Sustainability Strategic Plan Update to the Town's 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan 10 Min. PEC Training - Complete Streets and Vail Frontage Road Improvements - Brian Garner, 20 Min. Planner 8. Adjournment 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 appro)amate, 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 Published in the Vail Daily June 24, 2016 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for comment regarding a proposed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Titles 5 and 14, Chapters 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction, and Section 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, to include other forest insects and diseases in addition to the mountain pine beetle, to expand the definition of wildfire fuels and to relocate standards related to roofing material specifications from the Vail Town Code to the Building Code. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff—Memo—with—Attachments. pdf Description Staff Memorandum with Attachments rowN oFvaiL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 2016 SUBJECT: A request for comment regarding a proposed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Titles 5 and 14, Chapters 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction, and 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, to include other forest insects and diseases in addition to the mountain pine beetle, to expand the definition of wildfire fuels and to relocate standards related to roofing material specifications from the Vail Town Code to the Building Code. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The Vail Fire Department has proposed changes to the Vail Town Code in an effort to increase awareness and enhance protection for both life and property related to the inherent threat of wildfires in the Vail community. The proposed changes fall into three categories, two of which will be presented for discussion and feedback today while a third will be put forth in the coming months. The three categories are: A. Changes to Chapter 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction. B. Changes to Chapter 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to building materials. C. Changes to Chapter 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to landscape standards and guidelines, to be discussed at a later date. II. PROPOSED CHANGES Staff has prepared two matrices in an effort to clearly illustrate the proposed changes, their deviation from the existing language, and the possible effects of the changes. Some of the changes, especially to definitions such as "Director" and "Occupant", result in additional, non -substantive changes throughout the remainder of the document. Staff has not included these non -substantive changes in the matrices. A complete Track Changes version of the proposed changes is included as Attachments C and D. Please find the matrices included as Attachments A and B. III. REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review the proposed changes put forth by the Fire Department and provide feedback and suggestions prior to these changes being put before the Town Council. As the Vail Town Code does not authorize the PEC to make formal recommendations on code changes other than those to Chapters 12 and Chapter 13 (Zoning and Subdivision Regulations), staff is not requesting a formal recommendation or findings. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Changes to Chapter 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction Matrix B. Changes to Chapter 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to Building Materials Matrix C. Track Changes Version of Proposed Changes to Chapter 5-11 Abatement of Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction. D. Track Changes Version of Proposed Changes to Chapter 14-10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to building materials. Town of Vail Page 2 N -O C O w 7 p- m .2 U a) O C a) -O s QO O O- w m E.E OAU E -0N0C: w 0 m° Om O E Q .�..... N E t `� cTj C o a) N N CL :5 N '§ m N U O C N O Qp 0 a) a) -O O m -O N N jn �.. C O- S C N N a3 p CL C: O_ C C LL N N C . W N N Q O N m a) m Y 7 w p Q O co L m C 'y [ N s co N _ O C U) C m N Oco O E.�.. N 3: C p LU p ° s co O mam rn�3 w>mwo� 0-0 CL a, a) C -r mwE oC .N U) oU nco °o 0 wm NN2.NE pp- ao�0 sE C Q m z ��w oa �.� o co� N co .9-0.9 O `O w o ° o rn a) � E n -o C a) m .0- m p° w m — w w 3 O 0 w ow -C E w p E t '� � uoi O nE In ,� � E' X .S m w �_ H 'E o 'E m N o p o > o p >,m p p E m o m o E Nim m m wpm m w� p '-p mm3 t C� m �Omw Cn -0 m 2-0 � °gym ° 3 a) ° °°w °a)o o w Jan w >Cm omE 0CL m UE C)a)m>a�i>- mm�owoa) D Comm m'�Nm m °? � sem° n mn� CL �o°� n �'O1 �'�2 E > E ° w � � E rn a) s E m m °) m. C w m N M m w CL m p _r_ CL ° > U m m C: QU N �L.�.. mU fn O)a) Ow Cm O)_ N tp p).— O)N C 0 ) 2 0E yy U co ° ' Ot LCmt U OU LCm Sm LCmU �) �7N mm :L NV0m � m a) (6 N >. wOmO_ o-0 -pO S7m NOm_ a 0 CC .— m O co O O U Np Ep- OO Np OCOQ O Namm) No- O mE0)c E w 7m -p 2.2 pO n=Cm CL=na)CL LL O p CL_ Z) O aa O QL xm aQ — am UE tNOa) vN co sma) s Cl) H m nH -p a >HofO m° w 7 w D o 6 w Q LL w U U C L .0 O N m -o> m 3w w t mmm 3��a) m>,jOmmmm�� A O �s w C N m m U a) N E� �mLL p C �oa)ma) U ma)•^w s N °' C t U ��mn Nt E m a) m p C O C t N> m a) m .�.. E C 7 W O m > -O y 06 m O o y LL .2-0 .0 U O- Q C 0 t NE 0 Q) U m m -O C. ° `m a) m C a) a) m N C O E m p m C O C a) N O w U) m U U— w a) a) N O C LL O C W U) -O o C 3 (n (n J O) - i 0 a) .2 O N m m N m W(n ir wa) c— p .— �m ° O) O) W O (n n -O m> m co 2 °=U a) O) DmC O) m CO LL N° m a)CC >Ca) O -02 w m a) LjjC-p p W J= 9 -- U U) O a) O EUD E o Q co 2 O J mC w -p -O m_O_ Q Y W mLLU O) a) a) m -0p O m o m w w �� o� °° iEpwoa � � 1wco-0 z z .m Lu— a) U C O co C `o 0 OD D p- ° m Noa) 0 mm v aCm) -O m O j co a NO N L 'OL CL QNE -OO s O U CL p- C0 N -O 2 O m U O' L>U N -O a) Co CL V O co U m _ m a) m co " 3 C -O t > L �p t 0 ,� N C° N C O C O Q p o — H CL 3 E... m 3 - 3 ai O w O a W N N cr > o J a) '� o .w O_ C o � O C 3 > m w a m N Z w '� ° U C O a) H umi W° W m w a)° i i— O t m p m 'umi -O N -p a) Cs -0 J 7 m O p C W a) E 3 O O) m C m'm Q O- > C -O N > m -p N -O O) a) 'O S C a) N W z Q A i C O O T m° J p w, O m m _0 O a) � O U J Z Cl) W LL t -O u! d N 7 Q U C N 7 CL N 3 U LLJ� a) -O -O m° - LL 2 w U w, F C -O a) LL W o Z N —o 0 t o Z O a 0_ z ... 0 p O a) s �Q= �� >, Ul W m a) a) m a) Y CL 0 �� QE� z W w o -i o UN z°�T��a)a)� a o - m 0 Co 'm fn 0 C ° U W Y 0 U C 7 Q C U m w m m �m�� U)— .— J Q a) Q-0 'O Q X WUQLi L s ? to W L C m3'n O �3 a) �00o3o10- <n cow3n 0 W w y w W O a C O z > w � no w E- M O co ° Com _' a) M > : = ' s -5 O oN O Q E 6) ' n O m w � � Y n 0" w N V 0 > wt mpwo -p a) (n a w7=w 1 O' w co w w o m w U N w at0) O C m 0 c: t O_ w t t p_ fp m U U n m t° w 0 w N M .m, L> 2 ° w w—> m m m U p 0 O 0_ fmA cm O O O_ O_ = > O_ ,0 m E Q p m m m t O O m O 0) 0) 7 O U w p_ O) .t.. N N O' Ul fp L O C N N Q O_ 7 U) w m H o w m a a� w n m ri E w w m w °° w wmc o > w p w 0 a)o iso 0 O.� > oo ll w (cu �mma�Ei 0�>mos a)(Ua) 20LI ° w U >'� w m a°i m E E -E p w -r- (,n o'� w m > r )i Www w ow wo mH2 p w"0 O -p �m>Crn ca)) o O y C m w N0 wp�mN>m = wo wAE -ow CCE Ow m7ii � . O E� O 3 a) C: tm o~a) E O 0 >, 5p. 2wN E ° -p ' N w O 'O O_ N w w 'w N N° ... .0 w m C° ftp '�" N 0) 0 .9 C � EC� .t0 Vw CL w ON�0sN N N °"2 `p C: 2 L 0 U�nw. E p.mo 7.0 " �t �sO o Qa)0 a) a 3 0 U w U wn0 C°O wwtmUw MD D Q 0 cn O N-0 m m°m-0 w U co mm w t w .� w '� m 'I))o -LD �wC: EL -pO NnEw `oin f°w�wwp p a �'wo wS o o f -p -p 0 w a) - o -o u°i Eom n wnpn w p m C ow E wn0t�. O �p w Un wmEn uo 0n zJ w� owe o0�O�-tnna) .� mw>nwN °m mm Ow°°w - o �fp S�o 2° E w mQ p a3 0C o E m0'C w mU -o -o-o�n UU a) � � 'w O C w C � OwO 1)LL 7 tm D O N E=E'CFuw O i O C > a) EO Q -.O.. w w w O LD U > p°pE C :5 m -O Qw W m (pJ a) O 3: Q O aE O 2O ° >w O O'p w >NE> p_ 0 O �O-o a) a) C OC a) ° o p ° -6 w w 2 �O_ p Z° c: 0.0 E m fpDo O O OO a) Ota) QD L. .- 2 Uw AO� p � m O N O E'O> > N > .0N.. U tm O a) C E pO U O ����'�wQUOw g 2oCm aQ�goniw swU w�a Q 0UO 0 C O n E o o=oUn 0 CML ) S o m ° U D� Q ) m (6 Q E D Ot s U) a) N n 0)'O > m C C: p N N = 0 Co N A N m Q n O E 7 O C c co 0) co C N C N oo.0 — Lm U N C p o s O U a) 7 U . a) 0 LU (6 0) U i N N a) N a) m N N rn'0 a) s 0 N p (6 o s N n m U U) m 2 .0 Us Esw° m a) .m. s N .E N a) N a) °O ° W U U s w 'E 'F .E N o o m > s 01-a,0 s w O O s s o s a) ns OU ns w Q ° m N m 0) 0 c: m p 0) Q — N U NN N N E N> m' C °' 0).Lm n° m ' N N s: (/) � U N 0) N w C -0 (n U — 2 8 p p- E a) — o O o m s mE � m E cm E N O .— O s m m U m N z cL '0 C N '0 '0 co Q'N s C C N cl) o oMD o -a-a o o O cmt m w m E o- 0 mow °? o mn.o 3 N -0 s C E -0 O m 0). '0 U N U C> E o E O a) 0 C m (6 (6 a) a) m N _° ° w w Q w s C C p m 0 '06 m 3 co s N x— N w '0 N w> D N a) w O m S N L D),C U N '0 .0. �,.N a) 7 a) tl) N N .m. o C N O a) s 0' a t.'E (D s E H S'm o'm E�'oL n w m n N a)'s ��o� �' E m �Ec°)w>os�Qo� o�2a�i�'mt`8o�=�o,))Z °? z) of o° i EN m N N N 0) MDmmU)o�'N' ° Jm a) a) C a) a) Y U U (n ELL (n n 2 U C '0 N U . a) '0 C m W C co 7 U C a) O �a)��c: 0-o n 0 °)na)-wUmwmN N o -E (6 .�-' o Q> N .O � 0) E N L a) L cL N ° _6 — a) 3 w ° O S E m m w '0 N S- E o N E~ p Ul a) N U N m -p E .— in -o o >, O U a) (n w O >� mos w E .m W a) n rn a n -gym w�2 E� m s N p Q a) N w 3 .� n a) > O O m N -0 a) m :p > a) a) > U) > N N U O E p E p _0 N U) m L F 3 2 a) N' -0 m 5 N >` 3 : C 7° E S C C m a) O ) N O o' a)�wn°Ot��co:��muNi��pmF3 H i N N m O -E nsQ°s�� t m> LL ; N O c: co 1) o a) N e w . L S a) 0 N N C N 0 � N 7~ C i) '� O N a) 'O W L 0 U O m m s w Q m n> n 2� w w w 3 c°) m o n w E n .m45 M m o Som w w c 3 m m > --o coy � o,`O- 2t Ep' 3000x m o .2 oxo' ayi �s me m a) Sin w .2 os '0 o� E o.2 u, 3... a)s o' m n C m _ S C S y O m 0) N N `m a) o E Q> a s O om m' m a m n no N °w. (u °?co a)a) v m E W n o a n o rn m X -' o n ,)) o n c o E -p os m- w U mw m N o o 0 m n 3 S o m p m � � v E H � E � � � � O o N -O p '0 O a) C O N C N U N N E a) 0) — tl) Q'0 m o)() a) 7 >. U 00 w t o > s m m 3 N - w c: D)'E p — > 3 0 -o > 'N s n m a) Oso `� m C Z moi 3 Ens ° om -0 O) . - cL C a) s � ,U m O C co o : s ~�2m°)��too Wiz o�mm Q mw a www 3 U m o nw E n m `p 0 0 p C N N Q C m U N O p 0):5 0 m O Ns0ai C U °)0`n�6m m o 0 0 O EO '� fmA a) s 3 o a) -O m C N m Y t N Q m O m a) -p E E >. 3 a) '� N a)O _ m C O_ a)ma)N U N m N y a) O E -a 5 c O . N 0 t N m m _ t w > E E U w O 7 t i a) s " -O ,m U m m W co 0 O O_ O '� a) a) a1 s 0_ u! j U m O Q E c .� m o co O 7 a) yj E ._ o CL H w E o E o m t H c°) o w. ° t ai D) o p .m o N O_ a) O C) m '- tw�Fuo a) N O U C O_O ' O o E U O O C Q t 2 U p co O U D 2 N O N > N 0 O m U a) m E�EL �c: nm 0 m .; a) 0 U m C) E C) C 0 t _ U O) t U U OE I .S . - 3 O N N j C fmA N a) no'mn cw E m7 o m m2 n O m E rn(nCs °' cLEUfn p O m tna) N 7 U a) a) a) O ... Oa) .t.. Cm Op) wm QQa)m a0) O Nn 0 UO4> 7 E pm Own .�0j C ° y p E U C C a) a) C E mA m N O m Q t N w a) O (6 a) O O C O y w +� m U w> m m o> ESS =w�a�i a) -0 mm m N E °? n m s o C: a) a) mcE y E a) �3Um. .y. a) O_CL y m m C S E c 5 v E p m w U y y y a) CL U t C W ° O N m o CL m = m m m n m a ms rna)— E p o y y ,0) 0 N C D UV- >, y O m o m— a) t d co O_ co O'06 N z Q 0_ E 0) Q N'06w C 0 O N N jp c:O -rcoc N Q m .�.. N a) t O_ N y O_ N m a) O ... ° ° n o U y m i -2- U O- a) 0) E : O�1Q y Q .�.. N N 7 t >,N y E c: y y a)O N (an) Q 3 0 0 0 a) a) 0) > y E co) m C y p o m OLD a) E O Y m = y m U a) o a) E p� O Din 0 ms mny E 30: cL `o,om m E om �ops m E nmwo E m m cL D)o mm N sca, p H �' 3 U o � w U' o U 0m E 3 o m m w s m . m > m.5 om E m ai y ayi m m > s —_mo > c3 °a)6m oa) E o m m 3 p V z- O) co O N rn� C y y Q Q U) o p oop>UE -O 'c: ou `Om.NEm E N o n 2- a) m o s w m o w o _° oo (u E LLL >, o° L '06 Q O a) o -p O N a) o h o (7 m E m s a) ow 0 w E v o w a) -a o rn m m y o y 7 o N 3 m m �o A(an) 7 ym. ` O V m E x w - O 'O D)a) a) m o N ... o w U>, m J U) O m C ._ o y C == C E� N o D) O C a) o- O o O i- y y p_ ` U >. v 'D m 0) - E a) a) a) usi(o c: ow 3 a) cc-D cn Es E m mw m a) Q m m m O U m D 0 y QU-°wco�'. -pm>. T o m o° m s >,woinui a)> O > m m E m D )i m o' o 2 m rn� N O o o y E Ew o O a) J m -a Q m Q LL m. 01 O 'O w`. N.9 Q2LL o - mQ p - O O D7° Nty Hm oai o Lma=c°)co00 of > mmaO1ip nt��n°.gym CL z° n3�'��axism°w>2o� s m ° C m o 3 m ° 6 p)— t m O. E E N y y E N 7 c " a) mow'>s R -p a) m w o' m E N' U .0 a) L 'O 3 D) = y 3cL- m m N .T m j o y 0 -O O 2--a- co) -D -D >, o f 'D O a) O a) 'y E a) m a) ° 3 0 O O O_ 0) LLL A° O - E Q °� 0) O° O a) E m° mv) °� �" O O O S o m� a=o m m y m 3 O i) m m mrn�_ -w E O_._ C� C w a) o m.oU m E �s w a) O_ Q O Q"w a) a) N y _ m, a) o cc)m i a) m ._ '— 3 3 A C O a) --D m m i m D C y o y m E o s m m �A m 3 O C m s O O — D L U D N o y 2 y m w 7 m 7 m a) w C A O -D O_ m N C a) m w ' .0 U - E N I� m 0 C 'UD)) a) 0 3 0 (6 N m U -D C O 0) C N w C 0) O L O m N.2-6 O y C 'OU � a= E >, O m ... p J .Fu 3 m o 3- m° m o Q 7 N O D) p p m Q) s � = y y Q.� 0> E m E m a; a) v �o $ o> ° m `6� o�w yco E,o w in ms a�' 0 m mm Di 0 a) -D Q T,C ° Q y U T O O a) p m s m� >, O �O y N >, E a) > i0i Q m m O o N 'm c �m °w°� m C N 'E o 2 o Q) o) a) '� rnw m� `n o °��' y E w w �' m'� _ o a) nmOmns >.S eco D asi �� o ,=n LLmO> n .O om mw m °os p co `>: y x m o 7 o N U 0)'E a) m.�: 3 Q N 0) a) U C a`) o N °) E -r- x� p moo a) m N O -amm 3o c w a3 E E m E E w p s y w p a) s m > U o y Q s p Q .� m Chapter 11 ABATEMENT OF nn rg uEF-Tr F -DISEASED TREES AND; WILDFIRE FUELS REDUCTION It 0 5-11-1: DEFINITIONS: 5-11-2: DUTIES OF LANDOWNER AND OCCUPANT TO PERMIT INSPECTION: 5-11-3: INSPECTION FOR MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE AND WILDFIRE FUELS: 5-11-4: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: 5-11-5: ABATEMENT ORDER: 5-11-6: PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF BEETLE INFESTED TREES AND WILDFIRE FUELS - 5 -11-7: UNLAWFUL ACTS: 5-11-8: VIOLATION, PENALTY: Introduction Diseased trees and accumulations of wildland fuels represent a hazard to the community, if le unmitigated. Vail Fire and Emergency Services has primary responsibility for the abatement of diseased trees and/or wildland fuels. 5-11-1: DEFINITIONS:' 0 For purpose of this chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: BEETLE E PTFRSTRPDISEASED TREE: A tree, alive or dead, which is or has been infested/ infected with any insect or disease identified in the most recent version of the "Field Guide to Diseases and insects of the Rocky Mountain Re_ig on"the matintain pine beetle (Den f:oeto � rde e DIRECTOR: The town of Vail Fire Chief or his designee difv tef: ofr4li ,t,or-ks of: his leeate . -within the town of Vail >imits v�,o ; not, the of - S e r pel4y F-81: aha pttfpases OWNER OR LANDOWNER: Any person who owns any lot, tract or parcel of real property located within the corporate limits of the town of Vail. PROPERTY: Any lot, tract or parcel of real property located within the corporate limits of the town of Vail. WILDFIRE FUELS: Vegetation such as trees, shrubs, forbs or grasses and other materials such as firewood, construction material or debris surrounding a structure, which represent an imminent threat to life or property during a wildland fire as determined by Vail Fire and Emergency Services _ _ esr�e�rs���ers�rr.�e����e�ssrsee��sr�e�s 5-11-2: DUTIES OF LANDOWNER AND OGG P n NT- TO PERMIT INSPECTION: It 0 An owner of eee"ant whose property contains one or more beetle infested4Feesdiseased tree or any frrewildfire fuels shall allow the director to enter such property for the purpose of immediate inspection of the trees located upon such property when at least one of the following events has occurred: A. The owner at: eee"aat has requested the inspection; or B. A neighboring landowner of eee"ant has reported a sttspeeted beetle inn steel iseased tree or other wildfire fuels and requested an inspection; or C. The director has made a visual observation from a public right of way or area and has reason to believe that beetle infest diseased trees or other wildfire fuels exist on the property of the ownerefeeettpaii�. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-3: INSPECTION FOR ranTn T- P. PP. R BE&T- 'DISEASED TREES AND WILDFIRE FUELS: A. Subject to the requirements and limitations of this chapter, the director shall have the right to enter upon any property, whether public or private, during reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting for the existence of a beetle inn s*eaaiseased tree or any other wildfire fuels when at least one of the three (3) events described in section 5-4811-2 of this chapter has occurred. However, no agent or employee of the town shall enter upon any property to inspect for a beetle :diseased tree or other wildfire fuels without the permission of the owners ems, or without an inspection warrant issued pursuant to this chapter. B. If verbal permission to inspect the property from the affeeted owner of eee"ant. is not obtained, the town shall send written notice to the landowner and any ,,, ettpant of the property advising that the director desires to inspect the property for a beetle :rf st diseased tree and/or other wildfire fuels. The notice shall be sent by certified mail. The notice may be sent to the landowner at the address to which tax notices are sent according to the records of the Eagle County treasurer, and to the ent a+ *he property address.. Alternatively, the director may personally serve such notice upon the affected owners ems. Where possible, inspections shall be scheduled and conducted with the concurrence of the owners ems. C. If permission to enter upon and inspect the property is not obtained within ten (10) days after the notice described in subsection B of this section has been received, or within ten (10) days of the date of service if the notice was personally served, the director may request that an inspection warrant be issued by the municipal court. The municipal court judge shall issue an inspection warrant upon presentation by the director of an affidavit satisfying the requirements of rule 241(b)(2) of the Colorado municipal court rules of procedure. D. In the case of an emergency involving imminent danger to the public health, safety or welfare, the director may enter upon any property to conduct an emergency inspection without a warrant and without complying with the requirements of this section. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-4: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: It 0 A. If the director determines that the property contains one or more beetle infest diseased trees and/or ede-r-wildfire fuels, the director shall notice the owner Such notice shall be given either by certified mail or personal delivery. B. The notice shall: 1. Advise the owner �nalef the-eeettpaf4 that the property contains one or more diseased trees infested with mettntain pine beetle an Brand/or wildfire fuels; 2. Describe approved methods for the removal of desti,,etio,, of beetle inf ste of diseased trees and/orodwF4-r-ewildfire fuels; and 3.eReguire the owner andlef toe nt that all diseased trees infestedwith mettntain pitie beede-and/oreOier--wildfire fitels mttst be removed within a -Af thirty (30) days following receipt of the notice, or that an acceptable plan and schedule for removal of the beetle infeste trees and/or ^� wildfire fuels must be submitted to the director within such thirty (30) day period. C. If the owner of ,,,.,.,, ant disputes that the property contains one or more bye :diseased trees and/or etl+e-r--wildfire fuels as de-te-E fined by toe three*, , the owner Of shall notify the director of such dispute within thirty (30) days of receipt of the direeter-'s notice of violation. If a timely notice of dispute is given, the town shall not file an application for an abatement order until the director has met with the disputing party in an effort to resolve the dispute. If the director meets with disputing party and is unable to resolve the dispute, the tem}Town may file an application for an abatement order pursuant to section 5-11-5 of this chapter. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-5: ABATEMENT ORDER: It 0 A. In the event the owner &Hdeeettpaf4 fails to comply with the director's notice as described in section 5-11-4 of this chapter by removing the beetle infest diseased trees and/or etl+e+ wildfire fuels or by submitting an acceptable schedule for such removal within the applicable thirty (30) day period, the town has the authority to provide for and to complete the removal by obtaining and acting on an abatement order. B. Upon the expiration of the notice period, or at any time thereafter if the required action has not taken place, the town may apply to the municipal court for an abatement order. C. An application for an abatement order shall be accompanied by an affidavit affirming that: 1. The director has determined that the subject property has one or more beetle in f st ddiseased trees ori wildfire fuels; 2. The director has complied with the notice requirements of section 5-11-4 of this chapter; and 3. The owner of eee"af4 has failed to either remove the beetle infest diseased trees and/or etl+ef wildfire fuels, or has failed to submit an acceptable plan and schedule such removal within the required time. D. The town shall give notice to the owner and any ,,,.,.,, as of the property of its application for an abatement order either by certified mail or by personal service of the notice. The notice of application for an abatement order shall include a copy of the town's application and its affidavit in support thereof, as well as the date, time, and place at which the town will appear before the municipal court to request entry of the abatement order. E. At the stated time, date and place, the municipal court judge shall review the town's application for an abatement order, the affidavit, any statement of the town offered in support thereof, as well as any statement and evidence presented by the owners eeepaat, if present. F. The municipal court judge is authorized to enter an order permitting the town to enter upon the subject property, remove beetle inn ste the diseased trees and/ori wildfire fuels and to recover its costs as provided in subsection I of this section, if the municipal court judge finds that: 1. The subject property has one or more beetle :tif st diseased trees and/or-Wief wildfire fuels; 2. The director has complied with the notice requirements of section 5-11-4 of this chapter; and 3. The owner er eeettpaii� has failed to either remove the' ee4e irf s+ diseased trees and/or eta wildfire fuels, or has failed to submit an acceptable plan and schedule such removal within the required time. �rsese�r���e�ers���:e�errie�ssrsee��sr� 44 --In the case of an emergency involving imminent danger to public health, safety or welfare, the town may authorize the immediate removal of any beetle infest diseased trees and/or wildfire fuels without notice or an abatement order. IH. The owner shall be assessed twice the whole cost of removal of the beetle :fif ste diseased trees and/or ^� wildfire fuels from the subject property, including administrative fees. If all costs and charges incurred by the town are not paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the assessment, the unpaid costs shall be certified to the Eagle County treasurer for collection in the same manner as real property taxes. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-6: PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF BEETLE INF& T-EDDISEASED TREES AND WILDFIRE FUELS: C 0 A design review application for a permit must be filed with the town of Vail community development department by any owner or eee"ant desiring to remove one or more bye i€esteddiseased trees of athe .wild -fire f tell from his or her property. There shall be no application fee for the permit. The application shall contain a written narrative describing the type, size, quantity and general location of thebe-e-4-e- diseased trees and/or wildfire fuels proposed to be removed. The director may perform a site visit prior to taking any action on pelmit application. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-7: UNLAWFUL ACTS: It 0 A. It shall be unlawful f r any ,,,t% to fail or refuse to remove all beetle infest diseased trees Ind/or^� wildfire fuels from their property within the time period provided for in a notice of violation sent by the director pursuant to section 5-11-4 of this chapter. B. It shall be unlawful for an owner or landowner to deny the director access to their property if the director presents an inspection warrant or abatement order issued pursuant to this chapter. C. It shall be unlawful f r any pets to sell, expose for sale, offer for sale, transfer, give away or offer to give away any tree or part of a tree which is, at the time of the transfer, infested/ infected with an insect or disease restricted by the fnet,,taii pitie beetielocal, state or federal regulations. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 5-11-8: VIOLATION; PENALTY: 0 Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code; provided, that each separate act in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted, shall be deemed a separate offense. (Ord. 23(2007) § 2) 14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:0 The Town of Vail is situated within the wildland urban interface where community values intersect with the potential consequences of wildland fires. Wildland fires both big and small have the potential to destroy homes and neighborhoods within the town. The architecture and chosen materials of a building greatly affect the survivability of that structure in the face of a wildfire. The use of Class A roof coverings and ignition resistant building materials decrease the hazards to the individual structure as well as the surrounding homes. A. The use of ignition resistant building materials and designs intended to prevent the spread of fire are highly encouraged. Vail Fire and Emergency Services is available to proved more information on the use of ignition resistant materials and designs. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS may be permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of the following siding materials shall be prohibited: stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials, simulated stone, simulated brick, plastic and vinyl. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this code, where the design review board finds: 1. That the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and 2. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this code; and 3. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the town of Vail; and 4. That the material is noncombustible or aids in the prevention of fires. B. The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and any accessory structures upon the site. C. Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary colors or other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be nonreflective. D. The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet (4') in twelve feet (12'). However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, fire safety and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. E. Rooflines should be designed so as not to deposit snow on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks and balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof snow shedding if necessary. F. All structures shall have class A roof assemblies or shall have class A roof covering materials, as defined by the adopted building code. The use of concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt shingle, fiberglass shingle, and built up tar and gravel roofing may be permitted. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced with a low gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including, but not limited to, a standing seam). Asphalt and fibeFglass shingles, when peFmitted, shall weigh ne less than thFee hundred (300) peunds per reefing square. The use of wood shake, wood shingles and rolled roofing shall not be permitted. Two-family and multi -family dwellings shall be required to have uniform roof covering materials, except when the design review board determines that the materials are compatible, are integral to the architectural style of the structure and different materials do not share any ridges or planes, but may share a valley. 1. Nonconforming Structures: All structures that do not have a class A roof assembly or class A roof covering material, or structures with wood shake or wood shingles shall saete GGi:RpliaRGereplace the roof covering as follows: 0 -&a.. Additions: All additions affecting roof area shall trigger compliance of the roof structure of a single-family dwelling, a side of a two-family dwelling, or the entire multiple -family dwelling, except for a onetime exemption of up to five hundred (500) square feet of GRFA, occurring after February 6, 2007, where any addition of roof area does not share a plane or ridge with the nonconforming roof, and may only share a valley. The additional roof area shall conform to roofing regulations, and shall be deemed compatible by the design review board. fib.. Two -Family Structures: Upon reroofing one side of a two-family dwelling, the other side shall be required to be reroofed if the two (2) sides have roof systems that share ridges or planes. Different materials on each side of the two-family dwelling may be permitted by the design review board if the materials are deemed compatible, integral to the architectural style of the structure and share a valley or do not intersect. TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a picnic shelter located at 1600 South Frontage Road West (Donovan Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0023) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC16- 0023 Donovan Park CUP Amendment Final.docx Staff Memo PEC16-0023 Conditional Use Permit Final.docx Draft CUP TOWN OF 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com June 21, 2016 Community Development Department 970.479.2138 Dear Planning and Environmental Commission members and adjacent property owners: Re: A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the Administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a picnic shelter, located at 1600 South Frontage Road West/Unplatted — Donovan Park, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16- 0023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Brian Garner The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Town of Vail Community Development Department Administrator has approved an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a picnic shelter at Donovan Park located at 1600 South Frontage Road West. The previous Conditional Use Permit was approved on March 12, 2001 for the Donovan Park Community Facility consisting of the pavilion building, restroom building, surface parking, soccer field, basketball court, tot lot and open space areas. The Conditional Use Permit was subsequently amended on July 22, 2002 to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion and associated improvements. This amendment allows the installation of a new picnic shelter in the vicinity of the existing picnic tables on the site. The Administrator's approval includes the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a complete application for review by the Design Review Board before applying for a building permit. 2. Applicant shall at all times abide by the Conditional Use Permits regulations, Title 12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code. 3. Any conditional use which is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation, shall not be resumed thereafter; any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform to the provisions of this title. The Town of Vail staff has determined that this amendment to the approved Donovan Park Conditional Use Permit meets the review criteria prescribed by Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. This approval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment will be reported to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at its Monday, June 27, 2016 public hearing at 1:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road West. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" this administrative action for additional review at this hearing. This administrative action may also be appealed by an adjacent property owner, any aggrieved or adversely affected person, or the Vail Town Council as outlined in Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 970-479-2440. Brian Garner, Town Planner \ 2 / E Q - 0 k : E E / 0 k e . L- 0 0 E 2 0 \ k / .0 cucu % 70 Q - $ k k 2 70 / 0 2 / - \ k Q cuE / 0 cu cu o (De 0 / > E § / > 2 >E/ cu CDL.� cu 0 E 4-- § cl ƒ a§0 a) c 2 \ c G ¥ o 2�0 0 U g k ® J '> \ / % f •� 2CL b 0 o m a Q § _0 e @ * % cu '� / / / 2 u § '> � � � / f cu 2 E — 0 0 �2 ( - 0 w \o \ 3k u § §e/ / Q) Q) k 0 Eg / 0)7 / 3 / m aa) m cm o 0 § § / ƒ . c $ c LL -k \ � g k / g \ — ƒ k o R z / § � k E %¥§ � % � m / L° 0 D 0 \Lo 2 \ $ § / 0 / � / k E Q L§ 2 2 2 0 5 \cu2 _ 7 / � § %/f / 0 cu .0 �CDL 0 cn ° 0 U 0 « 0 cu c f 04-- 2 Q-� ± U � 2 �p Q 0 £ o ® m cu cu 0) / o cn q c 0 0 0� 2 m m c g o ¥ % a a) L- 3� £ / 2 2 0 § q A 0 CU a = $ 7 -0 f c •- a) > 0 2 2 r/ f E CN cu k- / UJ k� �/ - / - %/ %//T ƒ � f c /\ Ln 2. / § \ CL 0moo® m ¥ƒ LA- cn 0 a) § � -r- E % / / a) -0 cu 0 Lr -0 kƒ �/ ¥ § Q- 0 cu ° E � a- � � R§ ° ' k / §Lp < § -r- -0 .� 0 m 2 � ¥ : k E / / f -0 0\ 7 & 6 / k / ƒ ¥ 7 -i 3 d 0 \ 2 / E Q - 0 k : E E / 0 k e . TOW?J OF VAi� ` VAILTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: 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 FloorArea (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024). ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC 16-0024—GRFA—Memo. pdf Description PEC16- 0024 GRFA Staff Memo PEC16- Ordinance—No. XXX Series 2016 GRFA Definition—Calculation—and—Exclusions First Reading.pdf 0024 GRFA Draft Ordinance TOWN OFVAIL' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 27, 2016 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Amendment; Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, relating to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is calculated in relation to basements in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), and Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0024). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker I. SUMMARY This is a proposal to amend 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 Hillside Residential (HR), Single-family Residential (SFR), Two-family Residential (R), and Two-family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) Districts. 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 amend Section 12- 15-3 of the Vail Town Code concerning gross residential floor area (GRFA) and the exclusion of GRFA from the basement of a two-family dwelling. The purpose of the 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 clarify that, for the purposes of calculating GRFA in a two-family dwelling (duplex), each dwelling unit is considered a separate structure, and each structure is allowed its respective GRFA basement exclusion. This language will codify the interpretation and decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission, which is different from the way that the Community Development Department applied this portion of the code in the past. 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. The following new sentences are proposed to be added to this section of the code: "For the purpose of the GRFA exclusions, each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure, and each structure shall have its respective lowest level. In each dwelling unit, there shall be only one lowest level." and "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. The unexposed and below grade percentage of any shared party wall is determined by the existing grade at the shared party wall. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent". In addition, some language is proposed for removal from the code, or proposed to be relocated within this section. Staff believes these changes will both clarify the regulations, and improve readability. The proposed code amendments will apply only to properties in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single-family Residential (SFR), Two-family Residential (R), and Two-family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) 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) Town of Vail Page 2 concerning the exclusion of GRFA within a basement under each dwelling unit in in a two-family dwelling 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. As a result of this decision, 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. During a work session on June 13, 2016, the PEC reviewed a number of options for clarifying the code. The PEC also discussed options to amend other sections of the code to more broadly address and change the current policy on GRFA. The PEC directed staff to proceed 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. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS (New code language is shown in bold. Language proposed for removal is shown in ctriLothrni inh 1 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. nitiation. 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 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. Town of Vail Page 3 Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions: (6) Basements: For the purpose of the GRFA exclusions, each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure, and each structure shall have its respective lowest level. In each dwelling unit, there shall be only one lowest level. On the lowest level of a struGt„re the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole 6inter4or Hart„ walls are not nonsidered evterior wa#s for the uFpeses of this senfion4 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 nernentaGe dedUG40n naln,Jafions shell be ro,inrled to nearest floor members of the floor/neili 4g assemble abo„e_ 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. The unexposed and below grade percentage of any shared party wall is determined by the existing grade at the shared party wall. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. 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 proposed code amendment will clarify that each dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling is considered its own structure for only purposes of the GRFA basement exclusion. In a two-family dwelling, the units share a common wall (party wall), and when that party wall is in a basement, there is no exterior grade adjacent to the wall surface. For measurement purposes, the existing grade at the party wall should be included as an exterior wall surface for each dwelling unit. With this proposed additional sentence, "The unexposed and below grade percentage of any shared party wall is determined by the existing grade at the shared party wall.” each dwelling unit can be measured as its own structure, with its respective GRFA basement exclusion. Without this sentence, it would be unclear how the party wall would factor into the basement GRFA equation, and how to calculate the GRFA exclusion. Measuring each dwelling unit separately will allow each unit owner an opportunity to exclude portions of their lowest level that are below grade. This change may encourage stepped building designs, which should also help to reduce site disturbance by requiring less site grading and fewer retaining walls. As a potential negative consequence, floor areas that do not count as GRFA will allow some developers and architects to design Town of Vail Page 4 buildings with more aboveground GRFA, since aboveground GRFA is generally more valuable than belowground. This may make some buildings appear larger. VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 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 is intended to further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations by clarifying that each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure for purposes of determining the GRFA basement exclusion. Prior to the determination by the PEC on the appeal, the Community Development Department measured GRFA for the entire two-family dwelling as one structure. Based on the decision of the PEC to overturn the Administrative determination, the proposed text amendment is necessary to codify this interpretation and 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 5 The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the town by establishing 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 Based on the decision of the PEC on March 23, 2016 concerning an appeal on this topic, conditions have substantially changed and the current regulation is no longer appropriate. As a result, 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 is intended to provide 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. 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 Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions. Town of Vail Page 6 If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment 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 in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), and Two -Family Primary Secondary Residential (PS) Districts 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 VI of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds. 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. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance Town of Vail Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. XXX SERIES 2016 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-15-3A, 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) AND TWO- FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY (PS) 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 12-15-3A 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), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts; WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend Section 12-15-3A to clarify that for the purposes of measuring gross residential floor area, a two-family dwelling is considered two structures, each structure having its respective lowest level; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed prescribed regulations amendment and has 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; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 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 12-15-3A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: (6) Basements: For the purpose of the GRFA exclusions, each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure, and each structure shall have its respective lowest level. In each dwelling unit, there shall be only one lowest level. On the lowest level of a st,uGtuFee the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (inter4eF alty wa#s pro not GepsideFe J eWer;,,,-,^,a#s for the uFpesos of this seGtieP4 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 nerve aGe dedUG40n n IG141ations shell be roiinrled fo neorec floor members of the floor/noili 4g ossemb/v oboe_ 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. The unexposed and below grade percentage of any shared party wall is determined by the existing grade at the shared party wall. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. 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. 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 effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. 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. 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 day of 2016, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 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 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: 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 12-13- 5, Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Section 12- 23-6, Commercial Linkage; Methods of Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6, InclusionaryZoning; Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, concerning the payment of Fees in Lieu of providing Employee Housing and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0025). ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC_Fee in_Lieu_Memo 062716.pdf Fee in Lieu Memo TOWN OF VAIL t Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: June 27, 2016 Subject: Fee in Lieu Options for Consideration I. INTRODUCTION Starting in February of this year Town Council requested background information and began discussions on how the Town of Vail (the "Town") calculates its annual fee in lieu for mitigation of employee housing impacts (Code Sections 12-23, 12-24) and the Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Exchange Program (Section 13-5). Several work sessions have been held since then, including a joint work session with the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) to determine if the fees charged are adequate, are achieving their goals, and what changes could be made to improve performance towards meeting those goals. After much deliberation, the Town Council established a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of fees in lieu from June 8, 2016 to December 6, 2016, unless repealed or extended. The moratorium applies to fees paid as a method of mitigation for EHU exchange requests and employee housing mitigation requirements of more than 438 square feet in size or one employee or greater. Town Council also requested that the VLHA analyze the fee in lieu calculation method, applications and effectiveness in order to make recommendations on options for changes to the current regulations. II. BACKGROUND What is the fee in lieu? Fee in Lieu is one of a number of "methodologies" of mitigation of the employee housing requirement cited in Town Code for Commercial Linkage (Section 12-23-6) and Inclusionary Zoning (Section 12-24-6). These two sections of the code require that half the mitigation of the employee housing requirement (over prescribed minimums and barring any exceptions granted by Council) be accomplished on site through provision of Type IV or Type VII deed restricted Employee Housing Unit (EHU) or Dormitory Style Units (if approved by Council). The other option for the fractional remainder is the payment of a fee in lieu as stated below for each section of the code respectively: 4. Fees in Lieu: An applicant may provide a payment of fees in lieu for any fractional remainder of the requirement generated under this chapter totaling less than 1.25 employees. 4. Fees in Lieu: An applicant may provide a payment of fees in lieu for any fractional remainder of the requirement generated under this chapter totaling less than four hundred thirty eight (438) square feet of EHU floor area. The remaining mitigation required has a hierarchy of methodologies prescribed in each respective Section of the Code: 1. On site Type IV or Type VII EHU or Dormitory (if approved) 2. Conveyance of Property On Site 3. Off Site Units 4. Payment of Fees in Lieu 5. Conveyance of Property Off Site The current employee housing fee in lieu amount reflects the affordability gap between the cost of a housing unit affordable to a two -person household earning 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and the median cost of a free market unit in Vail plus an administrative fee of $3,000 per employee or $3.65 per square foot. Based on developer concerns that large volatile changes in the fee in lieu make it more difficult to plan development, in 2010 the Vail Town Council amended the calculation method to include averaging the fee in lieu amount with the previous two years to lessen the volatility of swings in the fee calculations. The Town Council adopted the Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program (12-13-5, Vail Town Code) in 2009 and amended it in 2011. The amendment allows for the payment of fees in lieu to be utilized for any proposed EHU Deed Restriction Exchange. Per the exchange program, when an EHU deed restriction requires the EHU to be occupied by an employee the fee in lieu amount is multiplied two or three times, based on the location of the existing EHU. III. GOALS OF FEE IN LIEU The Town Council and the VLHA have considered a great deal of information regarding the fee in lieu calculations. One of the areas that the VLHA has been asked to consider is the overall goal of this employee housing method of mitigation. They are reviewing the applicable ordinances, the data on the use of the applications of the fees, and the history of the fees collected in order to make recommendations to Town Council on this aspect of the fee in lieu mitigation methodology. The VLHA would like to get some feedback from the PEC on what the goals for the application of fee in lieu should be. What is the Goal of allowing a fee in lieu option? o Is it to build more EHUs? o Is it to preserve existing EHUs? o Is it to make it easier for property owners to relinquish their obligation? IV. OPTIONS FOR CHANGING FEES IN LIEU CALCULATION The VLHA has had several meetings to consider the fee in lieu mitigation methodology, including a joint work session with Town Council in May. They have been tasked with making recommendations to the Council on options for changes to the fee in lieu methodology. The Following are the options they have discussed to date. At this time, we would like the PEC to provide feedback on some of the options and ideas presented below: Town of Vail Page 2 1. Change the AMI target households for fee in lieu calculations. o As graphically demonstrated by the chart below (using the current fee in lieu variables) as income goes down the gap widens considerably between the price affordable to the given income and the median price for an 825 square foot home. Adjust AMI to be Housed $500,000 $440,550 $440,550 $440,550 $400,000 = Annual 10,0o Income $300,000 $238,000 Purchase $200,000 $180,000 Price $100,000 $81,60 - A$70,80 $56,640 Median $0 Cost 825 120% 100% 80% AMI Sq. Ft. AMI AMI Based on 30% of gross income spent on housing 2. Current administration fees are not adequate to cover the cost of staff time invested in the acceptance of fees in lieu. o The Town of Vail charges an administrative fee of $3.65 per square foot or $3,000 per employee to be housed. Based on the obligation the Town assumes to provide new deed restricted employee housing, with the acceptance of fees in lieu of providing the requisite employee housing, it is appropriate to adjust the Town's administrative fee. The Town has not adjusted its administrative fee since it was established in 2007. 3. Are the benefits of averaging the fee over three years sufficient to maintain the averaging requirement? o In 2010, the Town of Vail amended the method for calculating fees in lieu to include a provision that averages the current year's actual fees with the two previous years' fees. The averaging was requested by property owners who were looking for greater predictability or less volatility from year to year in the fees in lieu amount. o The fee is lagging current market trends by averaging with past two years. 4. The addition of HOA fees within 20% housing cost factor used in determining the affordable mortgage payment is not reasonable. o HOA fees can vary widely. if the HOA fees are too high, it can mean the difference between whether a buyer has sufficient income to afford the Principal, Interest and Insurance (PITT) payments needed to buy a home or not. o It is recommended that if HOA fees are added to the PITT, that there be a range of 20 to 25% used to account for the disparity in these fees among the HOAs. Alternatively, HOA fees can be considered under the 40% cap on all debt and obligations considered by mortgage companies in determining the debt limit of an applicant. Town of Vail Page 3 5. The current Fee in Lieu calculation formula continues to use the affordability gap for the average household and construction cost are not factored into the fee. o The intent of filling the affordability gap in the purchase of housing is to make housing more accessible to employees by purchasing units at market price, then selling them to employees with price appreciation capped deed restrictions at an affordable price (relative to the given AMI) and using the fees collected to pay the difference. The Town therefore has a net zero outlay of capital, for example: ■ A 1000 sq. ft. unit is purchased at the median sq. ft. price of $534,000 ■ A deed restriction is recorded against the property ■ It is sold to a 2 -person 100% AMI household at $238,000 ■ Fees collected in the amount of $296,000 are used to make up the difference ■ $534,000 (initial outlay) - $238,000 (employee price) - $296,000 (fee in lieu) = $0 (from Town resources) o The Affordability Gap Method does not factor in the cost of construction. Should the price of free market units continue to increase the Town would have insufficient funds to assist in providing employee housing. 6. Should Fee in Lieu be granted only at the discretion of Council? o The fee in lieu option can be useful for the intended purpose of allowing for small increments of a requirement to be paid, i.e., less than 1.25 employees or less than the minimum required square footage. It should not be used as a substitute for providing multiple units for a number of employees or to replace large amounts of required square footage equal to multiple units, unless there is a valid exception to be made for exigent circumstances. o It is recommended not to be used as an "easy way out" for exchanging current EHUs in residential homes that have very restrictive covenants attached to the property. Conversely, a fee in lieu may be a valid alternative for those older deed restricted units that have questionable value, since they allow owner discretion on occupancy, i.e., "if it shall be rented" language. 7. If Fee in Lieu should continue to be used, do we need different approaches for different applications? Consider the following: o Commercial Linkage for large companies vs. small businesses o Inclusionary Zoning for a small remodel vs. EHU Exchange in a second home o Currently in practice, these elements of the code are all treated equally. The VLHA and staff believe that there should be more discretion in the application of the fee in lieu option. In some other communities, the jurisdiction has the discretion not to allow the use of fee in lieu. The current Town of Vail code lists the kind of Town of Vail Page 4 exceptions that could be considered for not providing physical on site units for Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning: a. Implementation would be contrary to the intent or purpose of the zone district. b. Implementation would be contrary to the goals of the comprehensive plan or the town's development objectives. c. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the site preventing implementation. d. The method of mitigation proposed (by applicant) better achieves the intent and purpose of this chapter and general and specific purposes of this title. o As mentioned previously, discretion should also be available when determining if fee in lieu can be used to relinquish a deed restriction obligation from an existing residential property or if a replacement unit should be required instead. 8. Should Fee in Lieu be the mitigation method of last resort? Only allowed if on site or off-site isn't feasible/possible and no other options are available? o Applicants will always pick the easiest method for their circumstance, which with the market price of housing today and the current fee in lieu rates (calculated in 2013) being what they are, the choice most often has been to pay the fee. o The VLHA and staff recommend that the Town maintain Fee in Lieu as one of the methodologies of mitigation. However, it is recommended that a fee in lieu be used as a last choice and be the least desirable to the applicant and more advantageous to the Town. V. NEXT STEPS The VLHA will complete their analysis and deliberations regarding the Fee in Lieu options after considering input from the PEC and present their recommendations to Town Council in July. Staff will then take direction from the Council on any ordinance changes requested and return to PEC with those proposed changes in a timely fashion. Town of Vail Page 5 TOWN RF��" PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 13, 2016, 12:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Ludwig Kurz, Henry Pratt, Brian Stockmar, and John Ryan Lockman Absent: Kirk Hansen and Chairman John Rediker PEC Training - GRFA - Matt Panfil Matt Panfil introduced the training on Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). He displayed a PowerPoint presentation showing how GRFA is measured, and some of the areas of the code that allow for GRFA exclusions, including garages and basements, and some parts of covered decks. Areas that are counted twice include those with floor to ceiling heights in excess of 16'. Gillette — What is the purpose of an attic deduction? Attic adds to bulk and mass of building. GRFA was intended to address density as well as bulk and mass. Ruther — The intensity of use can be increased by potentially adding bedrooms to an attic. Neubecker — Due to a recent PEC decision on an appeal, the Town Code needs to be clarified and PEC feedback is requested to clarify the code pertaining to GRFA. Today's meeting was is not a public hearing, though public comment is welcome. Changes to GRFA regulations can affect other areas of the code and programs. For example, Employee Housing Inclusionary Zoning is based on GRFA. The lower the GRFA the less employee housing required. Staff provided three options for code change, but is open to other ideas. Staff recommends Option #1, which clarifies that each unit in a duplex is considered its own structure, and can have its own lowest level basement GRFA exclusion. Staff wants to keep the discussion focused on the issue identified by the appeal, and not a wider discussion of GRFA. Gillette — Need to fix definition of lowest level. Recommends lowest level be defined as a level including any level or portion of the building that doesn't have GRFA below it. Look at what really affects bulk and mass above grade. Pratt — Option 1 is not covering all our bases. Gillette — Duplexes get to have bigger basements than single family residences. Pratt opened the item for Public Comment Mike Suman — We are looking for fairness among duplex owners. Prefers Option 1, which treats each side of a duplex independently and allows for better site design, same bulk & mass. Units rewarded with subterranean square footage. Site coverage is limiting factor for all design, not GRFA — the second factor for design is height limitations. Bulk and mass is best regulated by site coverage, setbacks and height If we abandon GRFA, then what are the consequences for duplexes? For single family dwellings? What about those portions that are not 100% subterranean? Why do we care how much square footage is 100% below grade? Bill Pierce — Each unit should be treated fairly and get basement credit. Need to refer to original grade, rather than existing grade. Ron Byrne — General comments about GRFA and the need to review the regulations. Pratt closed Public Comment Stockmar — Leans toward Option 1 in the context of this analysis, but does not think it is an absolute solution. It is the simplest solution to a complex issue. Equities have to be addressed. Re -address GRFA entirely. Wants to know the history of GRFA, and why we do what we do. Gillette — Definition of GRFA needs to be redefined. What was the intent of the GRFA regulations? Change language in code to better address the intent. Allow stepping of grade. Believes the amount of square footage below grade does not matter. Kurz — Agrees with Stockmar and leans toward Option 1. Options 2 and 3 may open a can of worms, with too many unintended consequences. Lockman — Equities needs to be better understood and there should be equity between owners. What was intent behind GRFA? Needs better understanding and would like to see more graphics depicting potential impacts. Pratt — The history of GRFA regulations is entirely reactive. Town has written new rules to address exceptions that come up over time. He favors Option 1 approach where each side of a duplex is entitled to a lowest level. Option 1 needs to be clarified. GRFA should not factor in party walls; calculate the total and determine a percentage applied to basement deduction based on entire perimeter, not the perimeter of each unit separately. 2. A request for review of an Employee Housing Plan, pursuant to Section 12- 24-8, Administration, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, to allow for an Off Site Employee Housing Unit, an exception to the on-site requirement, and Fees in Lieu to meet the Inclusionary Zoning requirement for the redevelopment of the residences located at 303 Gore Creek Drive Units 9 & 10/Lots 9 & 10, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0022) Applicant: Sun Up Trust and Christopher B. Galvin Revocable Trust, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Alan Nazzaro, Housing Manager Action : Approve with conditions Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Conditions: 1. If the applicant proposes an off-site replacement employee housing unit located outside of the Commercial Job Core, then the square footage requirement shall be raised to three times the on-site square footage requirement, in keeping with the standard established under the EHU Exchange Program. 2. Condition #1 in the staff memo, concerning inspection for health, safety and livability standards, shall be removed. The Planning and Environmental Commission also finds that the request meets the criteria of Item "d" in Section 12-24-6 Al: "The method of mitigation proposed better achieves the intent and purpose of this chapter and the general and specific purposes of this title than the on site mitigation unit method." Vote: 5-0 Alan Nazzarro introduced the request to allow off-site mitigation of employee housing. Reviewing the standards, staff finds only one of the exceptions applies in this case (1-D). Staff finds the request meets the general intent, but without knowing the specific location of the new employee housing unit, is difficult to determine if two times the requirement for the exchange is reasonable. If located outside of the Town Core, then it would require three times the square footage. Town would review for code compliance and quality before acceptance as an Employee Housing Unit (EHU). Staff recommends approval with conditions (in staff report) Pratt — Are you comfortable with the 900 sq. ft. minimum? Nazzaro — 900 sq. ft. is an adequate sized unit Pratt — Is there anything preventing them from purchasing an existing deed restricted unit? Nazzaro — Yes, they can not use an existing deed restricted unit Gillette — Why is this required for a townhome? Pratt — When the VVT district was approved, it was included to require employee housing. Nazzaro — There were a lot of exemptions when the inclusionary zoning regulations were put in place. Ruther—There is sufficient space to construct an on-site unit within a 9,000 sq. ft. building. Lockman —Any proposed location for the off-site EHU? Nazzaro — No. That is why it is difficult to say whether twice or three times the square footage is sufficient. Dominic Mauriello — Unusual case of inclusionary zoning due to the newness of this zoning district. The request is based on the fact that two units are being replaced by one unit, thus a higher GRFA triggering the EHU requirement. Clients are in agreement with one of the conditions of approval, however they are not comfortable with the conditions requiring inspection for the quality of the EHU. The applicant would prefer the condition be worded based on the EHU complying with health and life safety regulations found in the building code. Kurz — What happens to the project if the applicant cannot afford the EHU? Mauriello —We would not receive a C/O until the EHU is in place. Lockman — Asked for the intent of the condition requiring a certain quality of EHU. Nazzaro — To ensure that the EHU is of good condition for the purchaser or occupant. Gillette — Asked what the VVT zone district received in exchange for agreeing to inclusionary zoning. Mauriello — When the language was introduced, it was not anticipated that construction in the VVT would trigger inclusionary zoning. Nazzaro — The point of the on-site inspection for quality was in consideration that if it was built on-site it would be brand new and would be of a high quality. Gillette — Expressed interest in striking condition one. Lockman — Expressed interest in maintaining condition one, but does believe the request for the off-site EHU is fitting. Stockmar — What specifically does healthy, safety, and livability mean? Are there certain standards for livability? Ruther — No, and there is concern about applying subjective standards as a condition. Gillette — Someone having to agree to buy the unit will ensure that it is not a dilapidated unit. Kurz — Comfortable with the application and striking condition one. Pratt — Staff memo requests consideration of tripling the square footage Lockman —Agrees Gillette - Agrees Stockmar — Agrees with Kurz and favors tripling the square footage Pratt — Agrees with tripling the square footage requirement as well as striking condition one. Expressed concern with the maximum 900 square foot EHU and remaining square feet to be paid by as a fee in lieu, as requested by the applicant. Would prefer a larger unit with remaining paid as fee in lieu. This is an opportunity to get a deed restriction on a larger unit. Gillette — Asked for clarification on the total square footage required for the EHU. Mauriello — The applicant anticipates the minimum size of the EHU to be exchanged is 900 square feet and the maximum is 1,112 square feet. Based on three times the 278 requirement. We are comfortable with 278 times three. Nazzaro — Based on Employee Housing Exchange programs, its total square footage times three. Pratt — Precedent of previous exchange was three times the total, not three times the on- site requirement. There was a similar exchange in the Bell Tower building. Gillette — Seems like an odd location to have an on site unit. Asked for clarification on what the code requires. Nazzaro—This multiplier is based on the Employee Housing Exchange Program, which requires a three times multiplier. Mauriello — We are using the Exchange Program as a guideline, but this has no guideline. Asking for total requirement times two, as a minimum. Staff proposal is more flexible, based on three times the on site requirement. Ruther — Applicant is required to provide 50% of the employee housing on site, or 278 square feet. Applicant is requesting to not place that 50% requirement on site, but to place 100% of the requirement off-site, or 556 sq. ft. That is the zoning obligation. This can be allowed if the PEC finds that the Applicant's proposal meets one of the criteria to allow off site. The applicant is agreeable to providing 1,112 sq. ft. of housing, which is above and beyond what the code requires. As proposed, it's more than double what is required on site. PEC should review to determine if this qualifies under one of the four criteria in the code for allowing off site housing. Kurz — Finds that the request meets the criteria of Item D in the Code Public Comment - None 3. Firewise Town Code Amendments Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Tabled to June 27, 2016 Motion: Gillette Second: Kurz Vote: 5-0 4. 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) - 5 min. Table to July 11, 2016 Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther Action: Tabled Motion: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 5-0 5. Approval of Minutes May 23, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approved Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 4-0-1 (Pratt Recused) 6. Informational Update George Ruther provided an update as to the progress of the site work at the Chamonix Neighborhood. Pratt asked for confirmation that a recent application for a KAABOO music festival has been withdrawn. George Ruther confirmed the withdrawal of the application. 7. Adjournment: 2:45 PM Motion: Lockman Second: Stockmar 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 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: 06/27/14 ITEM/TOPIC: Continued update of Town of Vail Utility Usage as it related to the Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC —Education _Series_PT_3- Fleet Fuels and Water Memo —Fleet—Fuels—and _Water.pdf PEC—Fleet—Fuels—and—Water 6.27.16.pdf fleet fuels and water presentation TOWN OF Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department June 27, 2016 Town of Vail Energy Usage and Efficiency Programs Purpose This presentation Part three of an education series designed to provide an update on the town's Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan. This report will focus on the town's fleet fuel and water consumption and how it relates to adopted energy efficiency goals. Background The 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan identified action steps and programs for the town to manage its energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan was developed to help grow a more balanced community and ensure a greater consideration of the natural environment. The plan has 6 main goals: 1. Waste Diversion and Recycling 2. Energy Efficiency 3. Ecosystem Health 4. Sustainable Economic and Social Development 5. Public Education and Communication 6. Transportation This review of the town's energy use focuses on Goal #2, Energy Efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and Community Energy Use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change. Fleet fuels are part of the big three generators of the town's GHG emissions, along with electricity and natural gas. The town's fleet operations include all passenger vehicles, smaller utility vehicles, heavy equipment, and buses. Water has minimal impact from a GHG standpoint but is a large resource consumed by the town. III. Resource Providers The town purchases all fleet fuels distributed at the public work fuel station through Collett Enterprises Inc., Gypsum, CO. Collet provides bulk fuel as well as oils and lubricants for large scale purchase. A minor portion of fuel, around 1% comes from off- site use through travel and p -cards. Water is purchased through the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The town purchases water through two methods - traditional treated water and RAW or untreated water. The RAW water is used for irrigation and saves costs and impact of putting treated water back into the watershed. IV. Town of Vail Energy Use and Efficiency Programs TOV Natural Fuel usage (Gallons) 2006-2015 )-lgure 1- TOV fleet fuel L®nsumptl®n since 2006 The Town of Vail has seen a 24% reduction in unleaded fuel consumption since the 2006 baseline year. This has been accomplished through "right -sizing" the passenger vehicle fleet or ensuring the right vehicle is used for the right job. As a result, unleaded use has gone from 20% to 15% of the town's total fleet related GHG emissions. Through the "right sizing" process the town has grown its fleet of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles to include the following: • 10 Gillig Hybrid -Electric Buses (In town Fleet) • 3 Toyota Prius Hybrids • 2 Toyota Highlander Hybrids • 1 Nissan electric Leaf • 2 Polaris electric Rangers Town of Vail Page 2 Unleaded Unleaded Cost CO2 Unleaded (metric Tons) Diesel Diesel Cost CO2 Diesel (metric tons) Total CO2 Equivalent 2006 51,607 $ 113,283 460 180,352 $ 423,627 1,831 2,291 2007 53,060 $ 125,023 473 173,294 $ 435,240 1,759 2,232 2008 52,703 $ 153,911 470 192,506 $ 613,695 1,954 2,424 2009 48,713 $ 87,056 434 176,057 $ 344,924 1,787 2,221 2010 47,507 $ 110,083 423 178,223 $ 448,543 1,809 2,232 2011 45,168 $ 134,400 402 187,183 $ 620,258 1,900 2,303 2012 42,240 $ 133,336 376 178,706 $ 617,508 1,814 2,190 2013 41,337 $ 128,703 368 183,836 $ 634,295 1,866 2,234 2014 39,918 $ 122,075 356 199,339 $ 655,767 2,024 2,379 2015 41,496 $ 81,799 370 193,286 $ 387,694 1,962 2,332 )-lgure 1- TOV fleet fuel L®nsumptl®n since 2006 The Town of Vail has seen a 24% reduction in unleaded fuel consumption since the 2006 baseline year. This has been accomplished through "right -sizing" the passenger vehicle fleet or ensuring the right vehicle is used for the right job. As a result, unleaded use has gone from 20% to 15% of the town's total fleet related GHG emissions. Through the "right sizing" process the town has grown its fleet of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles to include the following: • 10 Gillig Hybrid -Electric Buses (In town Fleet) • 3 Toyota Prius Hybrids • 2 Toyota Highlander Hybrids • 1 Nissan electric Leaf • 2 Polaris electric Rangers Town of Vail Page 2 Diesel has increased since the baseline year by 7%. Weather and precipitation have more impact on the town's heavy equipment fleet than passenger vehicles. On a day with snow removal, around 400 gallons of additional diesel is consumed over a standard operating day. Additionally, bus service has been expanded since the baseline year with mileage up 9 percent. These expanded routes provide improved service and reduced wait times to residents and guests. The expansion of snowmelt has had no major impact on reducing carbon emissions associated with fleet consumption. 35,000 _.._.._.._.._.._.._ 33,000 31,000 _ 29,000 27,000 pp 25,000 23,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 15,000 Town of Vail Water Consumption Water Consumption (Kgal) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 2- TOV Water consumption -Water Use(Kgal) Year K(Gal 2006 31,320 2007 27,005 2008 29,618 2009 22,776 2010 26,942 2011 24,753 2012 23,450 2013 20,382 2014 22,289 2015 20,747 Irrigation accounts for 90%of the town's water consumption Since 2006, the town has reduced water consumption by 34%. This is attributed to updates to the building envelope, and best management practices in landscaping such as low flow sprinkler heads, drip irrigation, use of RAW water, and additives to the soil to help hold moisture longer. V. Town of Vail Energy Consumption and GHG Equivalent Emissions As indicated by Figure 3, the town has had success in reducing overall energy use, most notably in electricity consumption and water use. Due to the growth of snowmelt throughout town and the energy demands of those systems, the overall picture has been tempered. To date, the town is using around 5% less energy than 2006 levels. Water, while on a utility level boasts impressive reductions does not contribute greatly to overall energy consumption from a GHG equivalent perspective. Fleet fuels have remained relatively flat experiencing a 2% increase from 2006 levels. Town of Vail Page 3 14,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 ry 8,()00.00 L' O � u 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 TOV Greenhouse Gas Emissions ego Rkft Lionshead Village Streetscape Streetscape and Completed parking structure updates 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 3- TOV GHG Emissions VI. Discussion: _Ul tricty CO2 Natural Gas CO2 -Fko C.W Total CO2 €quivalent As discussed in the presentation on natural gas consumption, the energy needs of snowmelt systems continue to drive the importance of efficiency efforts across the board. In addition to continued and expanded programs, offset programs may be needed to address the scale and reality of snowmelt resource consumption in the Town of Vail. Some measures could include: • Expanded renewable energy production within or outside of Town of Vail limits • Direct renewable energy production for snowmelt systems • Purchase Renewable Energy Credits • Local offsets similar to ECO Build(Eagle County) and Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) (Pitkin County) o Requirements for direct snowmelt offset through solar panes or fee, (e.g. $16/square foot). Town of Vail Page 4 M ♦M v J M O uj Z M CL W L_ 7C3 • W W N +� 0 �cn O O U (6 U O U N O W }' m O N >, M w m •M T �:. cn O Co a--� C/) O N O +_+ L E M Q C: C: O O cn t., W cn M Q +i N W N ♦O V � O ` `V W O � Q C. m N �cc,r O N V � � O o � V N V O W N LO r -i O N r - r14 LO C a� CL O 0 E O U C I m O C� Ea CD 10 t 8 CL *4a G? E Wco iy 1 •�"" d C O Z T W" L 9 & J Y 6 Ai B '° Era—n W'1 %A w w E � � a q � ` v us v J — $ E LAJ 'v Z rd Z3H +.a 12 LAJ E O &A 0 R � Z a W _ eL%-a M ♦M v J _M CL O 0 O Q a -j .0 U N J Q -0 'C N N C: LL W a--+ 4- U -+U IX LIJ z LLIV)16� .Jco cr 0 U-' mj�, O'I LO 0 N r - r14 LO c N E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I UN .,=N N O O � }' O 4 0 fu Ln C:fu ca O _ 4-1 C C6 W � _O o U i J O E � N CL (D> Q -0ro ca L - ca ' ca > O O O O ca LU O'I LO 0 N r - r14 LO c N E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I M ■ ♦M v J M O uj /`1Z CL PIN wo E N N W 0 V 1I N cc 6A d m 0 .l 0 4- M 6.W 7 LL CL m R Lf1 CL CL 14. to O Q N til u b - r~ Ln O N r - r -4 lfl c I• 4- 0 4 ' qj 4-1 4J � 4 4 4.jlu O ru Lo Q ate+ CL (D N .r CL D t U 4.J � '� N � u CL D -5 di ell LJ D rJ u C u 49 01 rl qj V r4 N 47 t ai r- o N 5 L m ul D U ru h IA Poi lu 0 IU CD L T tll � Q Ili y di N r Qv 6 S _ E u 1 aj 1�+ O E u)r U 0 L " LCL_ E Lo `) E •Y1 c AY IY C ru �i 3 J LL e--. C CL ii d) QI n- m 0 4 k+ 4-1 W H � •°mss � � 1I N cc 6A d m 0 .l 0 4- M 6.W 7 LL CL m R Lf1 CL CL 14. to O Q N til u b - r~ Ln O N r - r -4 lfl c I• W r n�� •� V y� W W uj � CCS O W CL O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O O R M M N N r -I r -I Ln I O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o LM Lri o R Lri M o M papeawn }o suone9 L L,, O'I �j LO 0 N n N LO C a) E Q O a) a) D c E 0 U O C I lasala }o suolla9 Sl Oe, 1SI0e, ql Oe el Oel ll' Oe, Ol Oe, 60 Oe, CPO Oe, �O Oel 90 oel n LO 0 N n N LO C N CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U 0 c I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Lri o Lri U 0 Cr Gl LU N � N O � I V I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W Ln R* M N r -I O M w I*% w Ln lasala }o suolla9 Sl Oe, 1SI0e, ql Oe el Oel ll' Oe, Ol Oe, 60 Oe, CPO Oe, �O Oel 90 oel n LO 0 N n N LO C N CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U 0 c I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Lri o Lri lasala }o suolla9 Sl Oe, 1SI0e, ql Oe el Oel ll' Oe, Ol Oe, 60 Oe, CPO Oe, �O Oel 90 oel n LO 0 N n N LO C N CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U 0 c I V y►J V �J ■ V ■/1�Uj ,�, uj W 0 ■ uj CL O LA 00 LD N M O N m 1%% N O r1 r� qr LA LA 00 00 r M O LD r� M r� -qr M N n 14 1%: ar N LD M M O N O M N N N N N N N N N LD r% 00 m O V-1 r1 r-1 N r-1 M r-1 Mil r-1 LA r-1 N N N N N N N N N N ra t]A N Ln ZD N L L N V O CL E V_IC ■L O m O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O un M ri m r, Ln M ri m r- Ln M M Ian Ln O N c -I O N m O N N c -I O N c -I c -I O N O 0 N O O N 00 O O N O O N 1.0 O O N Ll, cm cm •• LO rl O N \ r - r14 LO 4. C E Q O a) N C E O U 0 C I U'f G .;A- V) .E LU N1 m Qj 0 c 61 L 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 � N r -I r I 0 oD to T N Zp:) SUOI a�a�aw Ln r-1 Q N rl Q N M r -I 0 N N r-1 Q N r-1 r� N 0 1-10 N m C) O (N oD 0 0 N n 0 0 (N LO r1 0 N N LO 4. C E CL O a) a) D c E 0 U 0 C I ^0 W ro ro ro E C � -0 E m c� �o o o o a, o � w E C: b° O +� w w U O v v O N+_+ U O O -0 '— U O N • � ca � � � t�A � o a) cn uU Q w C: 0 p-o E tnW ca N E _ a� a� a -0�� C: O E O O � � o ca i ca O CL z •� j, =3p w O v 0 w vi a- J DC �O 0 • • • • R a; E O i O O LO r -i O N r - r14 LO CL 0 0 E 0 U 0 I m 19 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Update to the Town's 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC Memo 6-27-16.docx Vai I_Transportation_Master_Plan_2009- Executive Summary.pdf Description Staff Memo 2009 Transportation Master Plan TOWN OF VAI05t Memorandum To: Planning & Environmental Commission From: Public Works Department Date: June 27, 2016 Subject: Vail Transportation Master Plan I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail has contracted with Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig to update the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan. The update to the transportation master plan will be an on-going effort over the next 10-12 months and will include the following topics at a master plan level; • Traffic o Existing conditions o Accident analysis o Lionshead drop off area o Future traffic projections and modeling o Recommended improvements Transit o Existing conditions o Recommended improvements ■ Line haul route using underpass (West Vail to Ford Park) ■ Other route modifications Parking o Existing conditions o Recommended improvements ■ Updated recommendations based on recent parking data Estimated Project Capital Costs Based on previous efforts it is not expected that there will be a significant changes to the traffic improvement recommendations as depicted within the existing master plan, however with the implementation of the 1-70 underpass there will be opportunities to enhance transit service with the implementation of the Line Haul route as discussed through the 1-70 underpass design process. This also may result in possible future modifications to other transit routes as well. Parking is a more dynamic issue and with updated parking data, including parking statistics and event scheduling, it is anticipated that there will be an opportunity to enhance this portion of the master plan. The process will be open to the public and will have multiple opportunities for the public to engage the design team and the Council. The following outlines opportunities for public engagement; June 7, 2016 Council Meeting: Project Kick Off - Information Update June 27, 2016 PEC: Project Kick Off July 11, 2016 Charette: Transit —Focus groups & Public Meeting July 19, 2016* Council: Transit Update September* Charette: Parking — All day event with varying focus groups September* Council: Parking Update October* Public Open House: Preliminary Recommendations Nov. -Feb 2017* Council & PEC: Draft Recommendations March 2017* PEC: Final Recommendation March 2017* Council: Final Adoption *All dates subject to change as the process continues As shown, staff and the design team will provide frequent updates and engagement opportunities for the public and Council. If the PEC desires additional engagement or more specific information regarding other transportation related issues, please let staff know so we may incorporate them into the process. The executive summary of the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan is attached. The complete 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan can be reviewed on-line at http://www.vailgov.com/departments/public-works/engineering-adm in-constructon- inspections/vail-transportation-master-plans-studies Town of Vail Page 2 VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: Town of Vail Public Works Department 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Project Manager: Christopher J. Fasching, PE And Town of Vail Public Works Staff FHU Reference No. 05-168 June 9, 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Vail Town Council Dick Cleveland Andy Daly Farrow Hitt Mark Gordon Margaret Rogers Kim Newbury Kevin Foley Mayor Mayor Pro -tem Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo Sarah R. Paladino Susie Tjossem David Viele Michael Kurz Scott Lindall . Ff=L�RL;I:C� f1()1_T a ULLE VI(, Chair Commissioner Co -Chair Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Vail Transportation Master Plan Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae PREFACE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii I. INTRODUCTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 A. Traffic Conditions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 B. Parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 C. Transit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 III. ANTICIPATED GROWTH-------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 A. Development--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 B. Parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 C. Inter -Relationship of the Various Modes ---------------------------------------------------22 IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS -------------------------------23 A. Traffic Volume Forecasts-----------------------------------------------------------------------23 B. Traffic Operations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------27 V. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES--------------------------------------------------------------------33 A. Main Vail Interchange---------------------------------------------------------------------------33 B. West Vail Interchange---------------------------------------------------------------------------37 C. South Frontage Road — Vail Road to Ford Park ------------------------------------------40 D. South Frontage Road — Vail Road to West Lionshead (Ever Vail) ------------------43 E. West Vail Redevelopment----------------------------------------------------------------------44 F. Other Improvements-----------------------------------------------------------------------------45 G. Frontage Road Cross Section-----------------------------------------------------------------46 H. Transit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47 I. Parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 VI. FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN ------------------------------------------53 VII. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN ----------------------------------------------------55 A. Roadway Improvements------------------------------------------------------------------------55 B. Travel Demand Management-----------------------------------------------------------------65 C. Transit-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------65 D. Parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69 E. Pedestrians and Trails--------------------------------------------------------------------------69 VIII. IMPROVEMENT TRIP THRESHOLDS--------------------------------------------------------------71 IX. IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES----------------------------------------------------------------74 X. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------78 A. Priorities--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------78 B. Other Planning Efforts---------------------------------------------------------------------------78 C. 1-70 PEIS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------79 D. Implementation of Recommended Plan ----------------------------------------------------79 E. Funding Sources---------------------------------------------------------------------------------82 F. Next Steps-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------84 . FELSBURG �i HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update LIST OF FIGURES Paae Figure 1. Town of Vail Study Area------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Figure 2. Existing Peak Season Traffic------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Figure 3. Existing Levels of Service----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Figure 4. Existing Vail Bus Routes-----------------------------------------------------------------------18 Figure 5. Trip Assignment Distribution-------------------------------------------------------------------24 Figure 6. Residential "Close -in" Areas for Trip Generation -----------------------------------------25 Figure 7. 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections ----------------------------------------------------------28 Figure 8. Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service ----------------------------------------------------29 Figure 9. Vail Frontage Road Daily Traffic During Winter Peak Season ------------------------32 Figure 10. Central Vail Parking Imbalance - Buildout -------------------------------------------------51 Figure 11. Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan - Central Vail -------------------56 Figure 12. Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan - West Vail ----------------------57 Figure 13. Vail Frontage Road Laneage------------------------------------------------------------------ 61 Figure 14. Vail Frontage Road Cross -Sections ---------------------------------------------------------62 Figure 15. Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections with Recommended Plan ----------------63 Figure 16. Year 2025 Peak Levels of Service with Recommended Plan -------------------------64 Figure 17. Proposed Vail Bus Routes---------------------------------------------------------------------67 Figure 18. West Vail Frontage Road Improvements ---------------------------------------------------76 Figure 19. Main Vail Frontage Road Improvements ---------------------------------------------------77 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2005-2006 Season Travel Time Summary ------------------------------------------------10 Table 2. Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary - Six Years ------------------------------------13 Table 3. Trip Generation Rates---------------------------------------------------------------------------27 Table 4. Travel Time Comparison - Year 2025 Peak Season, PM Peak Hour --------------30 Table 5. Main Vail Interchange North Roundabout -Alternatives Assessment -------------34 Table 6. Main Vail Interchange South Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment -------------35 Table 7. West Vail Interchange North Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment -------------38 Table 8. West Vail Interchange South Roundabout -Alternatives Assessment -------------39 Table 9. South Frontage Road Alternatives Analysis - East of Main Vail Interchange- 2025 Traffic---------------------------------------------------------------------41 Table 10. Vail Interchange PM Peak Hour Levels of Service (LOS) ------------------------------60 Table 11. Mitigation Measure Offset; Total New Trips Equivalent --------------------------------72 Table 12. Transportation Master Plan Preliminary Prioritization and Implementation Plan--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------80 Ff=L�RL;I:C� f1()1_T a ULLEV1C, Vail Transportation Master Plan Update LIST OF APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover) APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING LOS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C DETAILED TRAVEL TIME DATA APPENDIX D FRONTAGE ROAD COLLISION DIAGRAMS APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES APPENDIX F 2025 LOS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX G 2025 LOS CALCULATIONS WITH RECOMMENDED PLAN APPENDIX H CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS OF IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX I FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX J VAIL 20/20 STRATEGIC PLAN - 2007 APPENDIX K LIONSHEAD TRANSIT CENTER WHITE PAPER - 2008 APPENDIX L EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO - 2005 & VAIL NOISE MEASUREMENTS - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2007 APPENDIX M LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN - TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS - 1998 & 2006 APPENDIX N A REPORT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF A PREFERRED SITE FOR THE VAIL TRANSIT CENTER - 2005 APPENDIX O VAIL TUNNEL OPTIONS - SQUARE 1 DOCUMENT (DRAFT) - 2005 APPENDIX P VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE - 2002 APPENDIX Q VAIL VILLAGE LOADING AND DELIVERY STUDY - 1999 APPENDIX R WEST VAIL INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS - 1996 APPENDIX S FEASIBILITY STUDY 1-70/CHAMONIX ROAD - 1996 APPENDIX T MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY - 1995 APPENDIX U VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN - 1993 APPENDIX V FEASIBILITY OF A PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE IN - TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE - 1987 . FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update PREFACE Purpose of the Master Plan The purpose of the Vail Transportation Master Plan is to consolidate and update the transportation planning and design efforts that have been on-going for the past 20 years. This most recent document, which is based on the existing conditions of Vail's transportation system, current trends and the anticipated growth, will guide the implementation of Vail's transportation system for the next 20 years. In order to keep the plan a viable document over this time period, continuous monitoring of the transportation system and periodic updates of the plan are needed, including periodic traffic counts and formal master plan updates. Previous transportation documents are referenced and summarized in the appendices of this document. These referenced documents remain relevant and provide additional insight and guidance for transportation planning and design purposes. The scope of each of these referenced documents focus on various transportation related topics with some overlapping subjects. The redundancy in this is deliberate to create a historical base and provide the necessary background information to predict accurate trends. It is implied that all overlapping, inconsistent information between documents shall be superseded by the most recent and relevant document. This master plan is intended to provide direction for a period of time over the next 20 years. It does not convey approval for any one particular improvement, development, project, or facility. Assumptions made within this report (i.e. trip generation reductions, transit use, etc.) must be justified at the time of application for any one particular improvement/development and may or may not be supported by the town or applicable agency at time of application. Every improvement/development shall go through the town and other applicable agency review process prior to implementation. Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan The Vail Transportation Master Plan was adopted by Resolution No.12, Series of 2009, on May 5, 2009, by the Vail Town Council following a recommendation to approve by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Future amendments to this master plan must be approved by resolution or motion by the Town Council following a formal recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Implementation activities and ordinances will be approved in accordance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. .1 r_L'r� 1;r f1()LT & ULLE V1C, Page i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Vail continues to experience growth through new development and the redevelopment of older commercial and residential buildings. Recently, the Town has been involved in planning significant redevelopment projects including West Vail, Ever Vail, the Lionshead Parking Structure, and Timber Ridge. Numerous other developments have been recently completed, recently approved, are under construction, or have made application to the Town. In addition, Town staff has assessed the redevelopment potential for numerous other sites; the culmination of all these development and redevelopment projects will collectively add noticeable demand (approximately 2,800 trips per hour at peak times) on the Town's transportation system. This study was initiated by the Town to assess the nature of the increased transportation demands placed on the Town's systems by all potential development/redevelopment as well as that from other regional growth. The study focuses on the Town's Frontage Road System, but considerations for transit service and parking are also addressed towards the development of a comprehensive plan. This study also serves to provide the following: ► Establishment of a Frontage Road improvements plan from which to develop appropriate transportation improvement projects for the Town's primary road system. ► Develop transportation demand management measures to reduce peak traffic flows during the winter. ► Develop a Frontage Road Access Management Plan with support from CDOT for all future access points along the North and South Frontage Roads. ► Identify a strategy and establish direction towards developing a Town parking plan and a transit plan given potential growth. Existing Conditions A significant amount of traffic data has been collected in support of developing this plan. The data was collected over a host of holidays and spring break time periods to reflect peak conditions. Further, roadway/intersection capacity analyses (LOS calculations) accounted for conditions indicative of mild snow and wet pavement. The analyses of existing traffic conditions led to the following findings: ► The interchanges tend to be the most critical components in the Town's system. Besides providing access to/from 1-70, the interchanges are also the only points within Town where traffic can cross 1-70. This concentration of traffic through these bottleneck areas negatively effect travel time for drivers and for transit service. ► At peak times, drivers are challenged to turn left onto the Frontage Road (either north or south) from a side street. The nature of the challenge varies by cross -street and section of Frontage Road, but there are numerous locations where drivers attempting such a left turn experience delay. Again, this effects transit operations where bus routing is required to make such turns. Parking in Vail has been a high profile issue for many years during peak times. The Town operates two parking structures capable of accommodating 2,500 vehicles. In addition, the . Ff=L�RL;I:C� f1()LT a ULLE V1C, Page ii Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Town has established Ford Park for permit parking and allows parking on the South Frontage only when overflow conditions occur. Frontage Road parking tends to occur 25 to 40 times per winter season depending on conditions (the Town's goal is to achieve 15 days or less per season). Additional parking is needed to better accommodate the frequency of peak days during ski season. The transit service provided by Vail is heavily used. The Town has some of the highest ridership in the state with six outlying routes and a central "spine" route referred to as the In -Town shuttle. The East Vail outlying route often experiences capacity conditions in the morning (inbound) and in the evening (outbound) due to high demand. The two West Vail routes, which travel in a clockwise and counter -clockwise fashion through the West Vail area, provide needed mobility for areas along both sides of I-70, but the interstate is a barrier in providing efficient service to all areas in West Vail. The In -town route is by far the busiest route on the system and it provides frequent service between and within the Lionshead and Vail Village areas. Busy times see this route at capacity as the Town adds buses to maintain frequent service and increase capacity. Delays are often experienced at the Golden Peak area and at the Frontage Road within Lionshead Village (due to the need to turn left onto the Frontage Road). The location of parking areas with respect to commercial uses and ski portal usage is not in a precise balance. Much of the skiing terrain lies toward the eastern end of central Vail (Lionshead and the Village), yet over half of the parking is located in the western portion of Central Vail. Similarly, there is far more commercial use in Vail Village than in Lionshead, further adding to the unbalanced situation of parking demand and supply. Projected Conditions The Town is anticipating a significant amount of growth in the next five to ten years. Considering approved development, submitted development proposals, and potential redevelopment proposal in the future, the Town could experience an additional net 3,000 new units and an additional net new 700,000 square feet of commercial uses. The combination of this additional development is projected to add approximately 2,800 PM peak hour trips onto Vail's roadway system during peak times in the winter. The consequences of the combined traffic impact of the development will significantly impact mobility within Vail, particularly during snowy weather. Transit will also be affected negatively as buses travel along the same roadways and will pass through the same congested intersections as other traffic. Specifically, the following issues are anticipated during the peak hours of peak season: ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound off -ramp at the Main Vail interchange (attempting to enter the north roundabout), particularly during the AM peak hour ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound South Frontage Road approach at the South Main Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the south roundabout) ► Significant delays for motorists turning left onto the Frontage Road at numerous cross streets in the Main Vail area and in the West Vail area. . Ff=L�RL;I:C� f1()LT a ULLE V10 Page iii Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► Significant delay for motorists turning left from the Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive due to the peculiar stop sign configuration. (Frontage Road approaches stop while Vail Valley Drive approach does not.) ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound North Frontage Road approach at the West Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the north roundabout). Numerous options were considered to correct these issues. Some options were intended to address a localized issue whereas other options could address a myriad of issues. A consideration of pros and cons for options as well as other analyses, have led to the recommended plan shown in Figure ES -1 and ES -2 and the general frontage road widening scheme shown in Figures ES -3 and ES -4. One of the most crucial improvements recommended in this plan is the proposed Simba Run underpass of 1-70. There are numerous mobility benefits that this improvement would provide to the Town including: ► Traffic congestion relief of the West Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Traffic congestion relief of the Main Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Increased flexibility and efficiency to provide transit service to West Vail including a potential for a "line haul" rapid service connecting the Town's major activity centers. ► Accommodation of a trail connection to serve bicycle and pedestrian activity between areas north and south of 1-70 safely. ► Improved efficiency for emergency and operations vehicles relative to response times and plow routes. ► Overall community connectivity. ► Encouraging some to walk or utilize transit over driving given the underpass proximity to residential and commercial uses. ► Provides direct connectivity to Timber Ridge, an employee housing community. Other needed improvement considerations as part of the plan include: ► Construction of roundabouts along the North and South Frontage Road at strategic locations to accommodate minor street left turn movements onto the Frontage Road at peak times. ► Lane additions as well as signing and roadway lane striping to establish two northbound lanes under 1-70 at the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges (lanes would each be 11 feet wide). ► Expansion of the north roundabout at the Main Vail interchange. . Ff=L�RL;I:C� f1()LT a ULLE V1C, Page iv k2 \ 2 /§ }j 2772 /k a0 CL E cCh h /� M 0 J \ \ k CL $\ @_ .� LLJ &_ Cl) CD E 0 > 0 � E 7= 0 0 � 0 CD � / LL � 0 � % E E 0 % C= \_\df 0 �k\k ` 2 % G- _ Eaom@ - 2 % a 3 % c o _ c EA\GS \ , , m a !k / @/ E / f § 2 \ =Sp_,= %£%E + g 2 m E% E = 2 E a a 2 a=e>&« >,c = ! , _ } m m Ac w_ a j N 0 Aj a,� / faP7 { (� \k 3E ' /\ ${a ) /®G » c/\ 8 wLm OGE \/ \\ \\ /k a0 CL E cCh h /� M 0 J \ \ k CL $\ @_ .� LLJ &_ Cl) CD E 0 > 0 � E 7= 0 0 � 0 CD � / LL � 0 � % E E 0 % C= \_\df 0 �k\k ` 2 % G- _ Eaom@ - 2 % a 3 % c o _ c EA\GS \ , , m a !k / @/ E / f § 2 \ =Sp_,= %£%E + g 2 m E% E = 2 E a a 2 a=e>&« >,c = ! , _ } m m Ac w_ a j N 0 as c a Ch E N d � O V Cc v c �° (o r - C N N N V d v v Q Q - d N d i cn 4- 0�C7 a w a0a wx� p�Ob' �/aaa a�n8 N ' W (1) N i N LL N N _O CQ C c� 0 CD C� O i LL N O N E O U N S 1, AV � RI a) CE cz N 0 O E_ Q Cn U uj cz i 0- U) U O� OU � 1 0 � 1 L 1 � � 1 Z I 1 I 1 1 1 � � \ o � \ o \ II I I I I U I ¢. CD c I — l \ I z N � � O \ I CD — Q \ I a> cn 70 CD N ' W (1) N i N LL N N _O CQ C c� 0 CD C� O i LL N O N E O U N S 1, AV � RI lsa,ay: � m , � wp#y ma o' / \ \ LLI ƒ CD cr) c 0 � c � c � 2 LL .� � Elk § ./ $ k k U) \ \ § / U Q / / § § / LL E 2 cz -A LLI ƒ CD cr) c 0 � c � c � 2 LL .� � Elk MFELSBURG rIHOLT & ULLEVIG 6' J, 12' Lane 12' Lane 6' Shoulder;'Shoulder Bike � � Bike Continuous Accel/Decel Thru Lane 2 -LANE CROSS-SECTION 10' 14' Lane 12' Lane 16' Lane 12' Lane 6' Walk Parking Bike Lane Shldr. or MenShoulder t l 4� it t Bike 4 -LANE CROSS-SECTION Continuous 8' 4' J, 12' Lane 16' Turn Lane & Median 12' Lane 14' Accel/Decl Lane 1 10' Bike Path Parking Bike Lane Shldr. t boot 1k\ t l 4� 5 -LANE CROSS-SECTION NOTE: All cross sections are subject to additional laneage with respect to turn lanes. Some adjustment may be necessary for certain locations. Figure ES -4 Vail Frontage Road Cross Sections Vail Transportation Services. 05-168. 3/2/09 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: June 27, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: PEC Training - Complete Streets and Vail Frontage Road Improvements - Brian Garner, Planner ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC_ Complete_Streets Presentation_FINAL.pdf Complete Streets Presentation O N LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O C N E Q O N w 0 c E O U c I d- U N L L � O V N LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O C N E Q O N w 0 c E O U c I I 9 0 a) a) tf O Q Q cn m a) a--+ m -0a) O C: E O E O N U > U N (6 O m _N cnm ^W •� L M cn a) a)L L m M c a a Zii cn m a L _O O Q a) O O U E m LO O N r - r14 LO O C N Q O N N D C E E O U c I VOW t F- LU NW w 'F - v/ W F— LUJ CL r 0 L) rA O M O r�7 a) i � 4--+ a) > }' m cn i m a) C) O OO C/)a--+ cn C/) m o > � O OO C: A-- 4-j L O a--+ N U N m O U O }' c O .� U N M 0) E aL O O }+ 4-j-+ cn W E m cn M O N N cn V N O O U T N •a) E 1 E o a N L ci O O � U _ 0 0 0 0 co r%%*m 0 0 r%%*m LO 0 0 N_ a) U) (B O cu Z c O cu O 0- U) c cu 0 Z) 0 LL LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O c a� CL O a) a) 0 E O U C I L a) a--+ N N L- 4-0 cn L- 0 .m E m cn 0 U O cn cn m cn V I U .^ E 0 O ■ T O aj E Z 0 0 N_ N L VJ O cu Z c O cu O 0- U) U) cu H O N Z) Z) LL n LO O N \ N LO O C N Q O a; a) 0 E O U C N N > 0 Q cn 1--j to N cn O N O E N �C: 4-j O O _N -r- >Q C:E N O a _O -0 _U O N C: O O C: O 0 .� a) CD O tf .> E W cn�_ CV r:n I U •a) CD 0 Ecn�--+ Q cna) cn `` ^^ W L . U O OO O N Q N_ N L VJ O cu Z c O cu O 0- U) U) cu H O N Z) Z) LL n LO O N \ N LO O C N Q O a; a) 0 E O U C IE Mn T E c 0 cu U) c cu E _0 75 (D LO 0 04 -me LO r -i 0 N N LO 0 4� E CL 0 7; N E E 0 U c I 0 C/) 0 a) C/) C) 7C3 C: 0 L— m 42 Mn T E c 0 cu U) c cu E _0 75 (D LO 0 04 -me LO r -i 0 N N LO 0 4� E CL 0 7; N E E 0 U c I 9 -2M L cu ca LL U) H 2 Z LO O N \ r - r14 LO O C N Q O N N D C E E O U C I O 0 J - W p N Q CD N N C) : m m .m m70 Q m cn C) U m a) a) O m 0 Q N U O L cu ca LL U) H 2 Z LO O N \ r - r14 LO O C N Q O N N D C E E O U C I 9- � 9 IP CD CD CD LO 0r -i r14 r - r14 LO 0 � E CL 0 a) a) E E 0 U c I Y loxNi M ,FAf 7 LO O N r - r14 LO O 4. Q O a) i a) 0 C E O U O c 11 Y Im m r -i LO r -i 0 N N LO 0 4� E CL 0 N N E E 0 U O C I IR cu LL U) Z Tt r -i LO r -i 0 N r - r14 LO 0 4� E CL 0 N N E E 0 U C I LO LO rl O N r - r14 LO O C N Q 0 N N D c E 0 U O C I LL a I Rq'W�uil�/r I (1) F_ LU wLU (F_1) LU F_ LU .j CL r5m 0 L) wi cn W , W cn WLU. "fir•[ ..w' * r CL ilj O40 uy • a. m W J d UJ C� a - O N LO r—I O N N LO O a.., C N E Q O N N C E O U O C I r -i N LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O C N E Q O N N D E O U O C I W LU uj�. few a J •' 5 y-. m N LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O C N E Q O N N D E O U C I A Tt N LO r -I O N r - r14 LO O C N E Q O N N D C E O U O C I i• tw 4R �~va o ll ilj w Ira -0 Ln OL MD 6 w C Yi 44 > F- jD rV ch ro r 2 t OL i_- V)PS V) 2 u -0 R3 0 CL > -�n C IL An 41 73 Ln 0 d -I 7T LO r -i 0 N r - r14 LO 0 4..+ E CL 0 a) a) E E 0 U c I LO O N \ n N LO O C a) Q O a) a) 0 E O U C I /L� ^N W N a--+ N � O u Uj x •— U m _ •N 'i C�0 �, ( 4 O 'D 4-1 a O E � a--+ C6 4-0 N O •� a", °o 4-1 N p O p •— N U N a--+ O �O O wo E 0 •a� U O O N Q) L E O O a--+ bn LO O N \ n N LO O C a) Q O a) a) 0 E O U C I m V L i E L i is rn N LO O N r - r14 LO O CL O a) a) 0 c E O U C I• r. m O O •LL_ T � O U ca U_ ro W i E a--+ C:t% Q � O ' � ate--+ C6 � 0 L 0 E o O Ln •O • • L LL z rn N LO O N r - r14 LO O CL O a) a) 0 c E O U C I• or r r r e + � Al , N n, y A u Ad Name: 12199401 A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 27, 2016, 1:00 PM Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Vail Town Cd -VaiC Colorado, 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 1.Call to Order 2 request for comment regarding a proposed L VailDaily regg ulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Titles 5 General Man ager/Publisher/Editor and 14, Chapters 5-11 Abatement of Mountain PROOF OF PUBLICATION Pine Beetle and Wildfire Fuels Reduction, and Section 14-10 Design Review Standards and Vail Daily Guidelines, to include other forest insects and dis- Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for eases in addition to the mountain pine beetle, to STATE OF COLORADO } expand the definition of wildfire fuels and to relo- cate standards related to roofing material specifi- cations from the Vail Town Code to the Building }SS. Code. 45 Min. COUNTY OF EAGLE } Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.A request for the review of an amendment to a I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper grounds, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Pro- printed, in whole or in part and published in the County cedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a picnic shelter located at 1600 South Frontage Road West of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation g g (Donovan Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details 5 Min. A regard thereto. (PEC1 Vail, Applicant: Town Vail, by Gregg therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously rep) of represented Barrie Planner: Brian Garner and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of 4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Cal - culations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, con- said newspaper has published the requested legal notice cerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regardthat and advertisement as re uested. q thereto (PEC16-0024). 60 Min. Vail Applicant: Town Vail Planner: Chris Neu 5.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Code, to amend Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program; Section 12-23-6, Commercial Rulerovision. Linkage, Methods of Mitigation; and Section 1� 12-24-6, Inclusionary Zoning, Methods of Mitiga- tion; Vail Town Code, concerning the payment of Fees in Lieu of providing Employee Housing and That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0025). 45 Min. published in the regular and entire issue of every Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro number of said daily newspaper for the period of I 6.Approval of Minutes June 13, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 5 Min. consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said news a er dated 6/24/2016 and l� l� 7,Informational Updates- Fleet Fuels and Water Usage 15 Min. - Mark Update U Plan Update 10 Min. Kass that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/24/2016 in -Transportation -Tom - mel -Complete streets Update 20 Min. - Brian Garner the issue of said newspaper. 8.Adjournment The applications and information about the propos als are available for public inspection during regu In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, lar office hours at the Town of Vail Community De velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road 06/27/2016. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re - /7 r, lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional in- formation. Sign language interpretation is available General Man ager/Publisher/Editor upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Vail Daily Deaf (TDD), for information. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily June 24, 2016 the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 06/27/2016. (12199401) G2M.&& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 Ad Name: 12167562A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P33 Vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/10/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/10/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 09/23/2016. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 09/23/2016. � 2M 4, & 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on June 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Pro- cedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a picnic shelter located at 1600 South Frontage Road West (Donovan Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 16-0023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Bar- rie Planner: Brian Garner 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, Cal- culations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code con- cerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC 16-0024). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker 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 12-13-5, Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Section 12-23-6, Commercial Linkage; Methods of Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6, Inclusionary Zoning; Methods of Mitiga- tion, Vail Town Code, concerning the payment of Fees in Lieu of providing Employee Housing and setting forth details in regard thereto ( PEC 16-0025). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published June 10, 2016 in the Vail Daily. (12167562)