The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-0725 PECTOYVN 8f VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July25, 2016 2:30 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Kirk Hansen , Brian Gillette, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz and Brian Stockmar Absent: None 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-13-5, 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 Action: Continue to August 8, 2016 Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0-0 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16- 0024). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Action: Continue to August 8, 2016 Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz 4. Approval of Minutes 1) June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Motion: Gillette Second: Lockman 2) July 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Vote: 7-0-0 Vote: 5-0-2 (Rediker, Kurz Abstain) Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 7-0-0 5. Informational Update 1) An informational update on the community recycling program. - 15 min. Mark Hoblitzell, Sustainability Coordinator, presented a PowerPoint updating the Planning & Environmental Commission on the Town's recycling program. Topics included diversion rate, participation rate, and future goals. Rediker — Is the lag in recycling related more a result of businesses or residences? Hoblitzell — Yes, the initial lag was in residential recycling was due to lack of curbside pickup, but then there was a jump in residential participation. Rediker — Is there a threshold goal for diversion? Hoblitzell — Zero waste is the ultimate goal. As of right now we are not near a limit of what can be recycled. There is a still a lot of potential for recycling. Rediker — Would like to know a realistic expectation for the Town's level of recycling. Bertuglia — A realistic short term target is approximately 50%. Stockmar — Can you determine compliance based on year-round residents versus visitors? Hoblitzell — We will be able to have a better idea as we collect information during the different seasons. Hansen asked how collection takes place within the Commercial Core. Lockman — Has the Town examined a one -hauler contract system? Hoblitzell — No. There is an open subscription system. Lockman — It is worth reviewing that option. Gillette asked a series of questions regarding achieving the established goals. Lockman stated that the existing local recycling facilities, the Town's remote location, and lack of density make achieving a high diversion rate difficult. Rediker commented that the funds that were available to assist in purchasing recycling bins, etc. were not fully utilized by residents and businesses. Rediker asked about the commercial compliance verification procedures. Rediker commented on the need for e -waste recycling and was glad the Town offered free e -waste recycling at their event this year. Pratt expressed concern that the survey numbers may be artificially high due to the study being done in April and May. Hoblitzell explained that there will be ongoing collection of data throughout the seasons. 2) Vail Village Character Area Update - 60 min. Jonathan Spence, Town Planner, introduced the project and referenced a PowerPoint presentation. Tom Braun, Braun Architects, also spoke regarding the project. The presentation included topics such as a brief history of some of the structures and blocks within Vail Village and existing design guidelines and standards, including specific elements within the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Vail Village is unique from other ski towns in its architectural character and scale, public spaces, and streets and corridors. Gillette and Rediker debated the pros and cons of strong versus weak design regulations. Spence suggested a middle ground where certain design elements may be highly regulated, and others may be less regulated to allow for a more diverse, yet still compatible, design. Hansen — Is there a timeline for this project? Braun — Not specified yet, but anticipates approximately 6 months. Hansen — Have you looked at other towns as examples for guidelines? Braun — Santa Fe, NM and Park City, UT Rediker — Are there other documents that will be changed? Braun — Maybe CC1 Zoning District or other zoning districts within the plan area. Gillette — Operations are another area in which character is established. Kurz — The objective of the Urban Design Guide Plan was to protect the existing character without jeopardizing new development. In regards to a timeline, it is less important to complete the update quickly than it is to complete it correctly. Pratt — A review of what makes Vail's architecture unique would be important prior to discussing the architectural portion of the update. 6. Adjournment Action: Move to Adjourn Motion: Kurz Second: Pratt Vote: 7-0-0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VAIO July 25, 2016, 2:30 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations 5 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 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations 5 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 4. Approval of Minutes June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results July 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 5. Informational Update An informational update on the community recycling program. - 15 min. 15 min. Aworkshop to reintroduce the Vail Village Character Area Preservation Project, an 60 min. initiative to examine the Town's current regulations, design standards and guidelines applicable to Vail Village. 6. 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 July 22, 2016 TOWN OF VA10 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July25, 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 Fee_in_Lieu_Memo_CONTINUED.pdf PEC16-0025 Employee Housing Fee in Lieu Memo 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 2016 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-13-5, 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 I. SUMMARY This item is not ready for presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Community Development Department requests additional time to study the issues and impacts related to this topic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department requests that this item be continued to the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting of August 8, 2016. TOWN OF VA10 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July25, 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 PEC16-0024_GRFA_Memo_CONTI NUED. pdf Description PEC 16-0024 GRFA Staff Memo Tabled 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 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 item is not ready for presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Community Development Department requests additional time to study the issues and impacts related to this topic. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department requests that this item be continued to the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting of August 8, 2016. TOWN OF VA10 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July25, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results July 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC—Results-062716. pdf June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results PEC—Results-071116. pdf July 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF VAIP PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June27, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. 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 TOWN OF VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 11, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz and Brian Stockmar Absent: Kirk Hansen 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. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther Action: Continue to Sept 12, 2016 Motion: Gillette Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit for the Chabad Jewish Center, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-4, Hearing, Vail Town Code, to allow for a religious institution, located at 450 East Lionshead Circle (Treetops)/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0026) — 45 Min. Applicant: Chabad Jewish Center, represented by Michael Hazard, AIA Planner: Matt Panfil Action: Approve, with Conditions Motion: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0 Conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and diligently pursued toward completion or the approved use has not commenced within two (2) years from the date of approval. 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 Title 12, Vail Town Code. 2. The applicant shall instruct all of its employees to inform delivery drivers, caterers, and other people making deliveries to the Chabad Jewish Center to use the on-site loading dock or the designated courier delivery zone on the north side of East Lionshead Circle, near the east end of the Lionshead parking structure and not to use the Lionshead Circle transit stops or other unauthorized locations. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that people making deliveries to the Chabad Jewish Center adhere to these requirements and the adopted Lionshead Loading and Delivery Plan (Attachment D), and as updated on the Town of Vail website. 3. Failure of the applicant to adhere to these conditions of approval may require review of this Conditional Use Permit, including a public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and may result in revocation of this permit. Matt Panfil presented the project details and acknowledged a letter received for public record. Gillette — Asked for clarification on parking requirements and history of parking at the structure. Pratt — Asked if the HOA has signed off for the use proposed. Panfil — Yes. Kurz — Asked the present location of the Vail Centre. Panfil — Avon. Kurz — Asked what deliveries to the proposed use are expected. Panfil — Will let the applicant address that in their presentation, but anticipates small deliveries for office supplies, etc. Lockman — Asked for clarification regarding the previous fee in lieu paid for parking. Michael Hazard presented on behalf of the applicant. Stockmar — Asked to clarify whether there are anticipated modifications to the exterior. Hazard — No exterior modifications are proposed at this time. If there are at a later date they would seek appropriate Town approvals. Rediker — Is there a congregation associated with the use and what are the logistics of the operation? Rabbi Mintz - Clarified delivery and use logistics and anticipated hours of operation. Rediker opened public comment. No public comment. Stockmar — In favor of the application as presented. Gillette — Concurs with staff analysis. Pratt — Not in complete agreement with the parking analysis. He feels that there may be more parking demand than anticipated by the applicant, but he is OK with the application. Kurz — Concurs with Commissioner Pratt. Lockman — Concurs with staff analysis. Rediker — Concurs with staff analysis. Kurz incorporated the findings as set forth in the staff memo into his motion for approval. 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: Continue to July 25, 2016 Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 Approval of Minutes June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Action: Table to July 25, 2016 Motion: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 5-0-1 (Rediker Abstained) Informational Update — Nonconformities Jonathan Spence presented an informational presentation pertaining to legal nonconforming uses and structures. Discussion among the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff included topics such as, nonconforming density and the effect of previously approved annexations and down zonings, time limitations for the Town to enforce nonconforming situations, at which scale solutions to nonconformity issues should be applied, conflicts between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning classifications, the inability of a property to access available GRFA when there are nonconforming densities or uses, the potential to allow multi -family residential as a conditional use within the Primary Secondary (P/S) zoning district, and grandfathering densities that were existing prior to annexation. 7. 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 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. TOWN OF VA110 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July25, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: An informational update on the community recycling program. -15 min. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC_Recycling_Update_Memo 7.25.16.pdf Memo PEC_Recycling_Update_PP 7.25.16.pdf Presentation Itrfiyil VAIL � Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 25t", 2016 Community Wide Recycling Program Update PURPOSE This presentation provides an update on the Town of Vail Community Wide Recycling Ordinance adopted in 2014 and programmatic information to date. BACKGROUND In support of the Vail Town Council's value of environmental stewardship and effort to grow a balanced community, the 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan established Goal #1, Solid Waste Stream Reduction and Recycling, holds the town to reducing the amount of Town of Vail landfill contributions by 10% within 5 years and 25% within 10 years (2019). Since adoption, diversion rates have increased between 10% and 18%, neighborhood dependent. In 2010 baseline studies, diversion rates were as follows. • Town of Vail: 9% (residential) and 19% (commercial) • Eagle County: 18% • National Average: 34.5% The ordinance added a new chapter to Title 5 of the Vail Town Code establishing the following. 1. Recycling rates embedded with trash 2. Residential volume based pricing (Save as You Recycle) 3. Recyclable materials must not be discarded as trash 4. Waste hauler registration and data reporting 5. Wildlife protection requirements for most recyclable material 6. Provisions for exemption RECYCLING PROGRAM OUTREACH OVERVIEW Outreach and Education • Love Vail Campaign — The "Love Vail" brand developed to support recycling based "place -based motivation" — $50K. Materials included a website, IF YOU LOVE IT HERE, RECYCLE HERE. hang tags, fliers, posters, Vail Daily ads, radio ads, signage, video. Summer 2014 - Winter 2015, On the Ground Outreach - Utilized an intern contracted through Walking Mountains Science Center, responsible for public communication, education, and door-to-door outreach about the upcoming changes in recycling requirements and to provide educational on how to properly recycle to businesses and HOAs - $25K. July 2015- February 1, 2015, Rebate and Assistance Program - A rebate program with a dedicated $200,000 was introduced to assist residents and businesses with purchase of new bins or dumpsters, assistance with hauling costs, and training and signage for employees. Ultimately, $52,000 was distributed to residents and businesses through the rebate program. Ongoing education and monitoring by staff continues consisting of direct public communication to continue progress towards voluntary compliance. IV. Diversion Rates Vail Waste haulers are required to submit bi-annual reports on waste hauled from Vail. Estimates as of May 16, 2016 indicate a 25% recycling rate. This does not include construction waste material as that was not included in the ordinance. Eagle County Overall Eagle County waste diversion has steadily improved, with the greatest increase in recycling between 2014 and 2015 resulting in a recycling rate of 26.9%. Eagle County Diversion Rates Recycled Material (Residential &Commercial) 2010 Tons 2011Tons 2012Tons 2013Tons 2014 Tons 2015 Tons MSW Residential and Commercial 'b 4,188 7,036 7,595 8,284 9,535 13,683 organics` 5,907 4,231 3,856 4,808 6,432 4,798 HHW and Ewastea 34 55 60 102 125 138 Total MSW Recycled 10,129 11,322 11,510 13,194 16,092 18,619 Total MSW Disposed a 58,547 47,472 47,336 46,246 48,593 50,549 Total MSW Generated 68,676 58,794 58,546 59,440 64,785 69,168 MSW Recycling Rate f 14.7% 19.3% 19.6% 22.2% 24.89'0 26.9°ro- Diverted Materials (industrial) 2410 Tons 2011 Tons 2012 Tons 2013 Tons 2014 Tons 2015 Tons Diverted Materials (non -MSW) 855 1,59S 2,669 1,583 1,734 521 Total Recovered Material (Residential, Commercial, and industrial) 10,984 12,917 14,179 14,777 17,826 19,140 Total Solid Waste Disposed 86,988 S2,539 69,480 69,552 78,862 78,505 Total Solid Waste Generated 97,972 95,45fi 82, fi59 84,329 96,688 97,645 Diversion Rate 11.2% 13.5% 17.2% 17.5% 18.4% 19.6% .Includes: Glass, Plastics 41 &#2, OCC, UNP, OP, steel, tires, Sources: Vail Resorts, Waste Management, Honeywagon, Costco & City Market, Eagle County MRF, Eagle County `Sources: Vail Resorts, TOV, Grub Dump, Eagle County Landfill "Sources: Eagle County HHW, EVAS, ERI, Metech `Total MSW disposed is total landfill tonnage minus diverted materials and industrial (C&D} waste f Total MSW recycled/total MSW generated `Total MSW recycled +total industrial diverted Figure 1- Eagle County 2015 Diversion Town of Vail Page 2 V. Residential Recycling Program The most recent recycling participation survey took place over three weeks in April, including field observations on trash collection days and inventoried recycling participation (Figure 2). Note that a household is not necessarily non-compliant if no trash or recycling is presented on a given trash day (i.e., 72% of homes present both trash and recycling). Residential Recycling Participation Rates Figure 2- Residential Recycling Participation Rate ■ Trash and Recycling Curbside ■ Only Trash Curbside Most residents still choose the large (96 gallon) option for trash and recycling containers. Variation does exist with medium (64 gallon) containers being the most popular (Figure 3). A similar set out survey completed by Vail Honeywagon showed a 68.7 participation rate among their customers. Residential Curbside Container Size ■ MSW ■ Recycling 80% 61% %3% 4% 16% 18% 17% 32 Gallon 64 Gallon 96 Gallon Other Figure 3- Residential Container Size Town of Vail Page 3 Wildlife Resistant Containers - Recycling Non -Wildlife Resistant Wildlife 1W Resistant Figure 4- Wildlife Ordinance Compliance Wildlife Resistant Containers - Trash 2% Non - Wildlife Resistant Wildlife Resistant Residential trash is far more compliant with wildlife resistant regulations than are recycling bins, but given the recycling requirement is only two years old, over 80% is a high success rate (Figure 4). Multi -family residential properties had a much higher level of participation, with at least 85% of properties surveyed offering both trash and recycling opportunities for residents. Multi -family participation among VHW customers was at 94% Multi -Family Recycling Participation Rates 7%� 8%_ Compliant Non Compliant IV Unknown Figure 5- Residential Multi -Family Participation Compliance with wildlife container requirements (Figure 6) in the multi -family sector varied greatly. With respect to screening, enclosures, and types of dumpsters, there seems to be confusion on what is or is not an acceptable wildlife resistant trash facility. Additionally, wildlife resistant locks, enclosures, doors are only wildlife resistant if utilized properly (locked). Town of Vail Page 4 Wildlife Resistant Facility- Multi -Family Wildlife Resistant Non Wildlife Resistant Figure 6- Residential Multi -Family Wildlife Resistant Containers and or Trash/Recycling Enclosures VI. Commercial Recycling Program Public Access to Trash and Recycling Public Trash and Recycling Only Public Trash Figure 7 — Retail, Grocery, Professional Lodging and Food Carryout Businesses that Offer Trash + Recycling Bins for Customers Commercial Recycling Participation ■ Recycling ■ Not Recycling Figure 8 — Retail, Grocery, Professional, Lodging, and Food Carryout Businesses Operational Recycling Town of Vail Page 5 VII. Next Steps - Education and Compliance • Improved data reporting structure from haulers • Refined hang tag program (good, need some work, non-compliant) • Year-round enforcement of wildlife requirements • Commercial and residential outreach toward compliance/enforcement Town of Vail Page 6 df 7i TOM LO ANNA LM MOMMEM c r2 r 1 a 4-J 0 v a�y 7�) � FJ fu W Q cu O 4J aj airy U+4 0 Ln ori Q ui rr� L� E UI QI O C Ln Ln0 +� cuvi > CO W [4 U U � ca 0 O D m O T ri 10 Lri RM � Ln � r C r4 I +�1 11, En n � N Ic 0:1 l; T-1 LM Ti {ll 1 N J- m 0 , rnri T4 A Q n k a m m rel x rl 'f r -I ! c r�i --i Ic r a � N I I- .I C3 n 'n 'r H n r g Ln ::L LRT � ' rl � �.� --I r ill Dc Ln T-1 T4 l �� T-1 �I �[ Q3 m LA i IJ J ,J} f T 91 LA 0,T-1 L rrti O V4 L 0 X m �A In V aj 4.jIn km ■� l Ifs 2 tto—i }, pphl ow J4� l.; a— �,22 'L— �'�' cu��' aj W .61 CC 4q r. V) 41-IJ43 = ,3 aj L L lu Qj 4 GL- CL � ~ 0 �[ Y CL E Li 0 U Q cu O 4J aj airy U+4 0 Ln ori Q ui rr� L� iL U9 0 0 hU E UI QI O _ 0 Ln Ln0 +� cuvi > CO W [4 U U � ca 0 O D m O iL U9 0 0 hU roil low aA V cc m LO O N N r- 0 C N E Q O N N D C E O U O C I N L U aA N m LO O N N r- 0 C N E Q O N N D C E O U O C I roil low 0 r -I Q0 O� O ON 0 m Ca L cu 00 O N 00 r c O ON C7 c CaO C7 LD Ii LO r -I O N N O c N E Q O N N D E O U O c I O ON 0 m Ca M c CaO C7 LD Ii LO r -I O N N O c N E Q O N N D E O U O c I roil low 0 N LO O N \ N r- 0 C a) E CL O a) a) c E O U O C I i Z N 'N DC =0N — � 'N DC LO O N \ N r- 0 C a) E CL O a) a) c E O U O C I — V) — (n LO O N \ N r- 0 C a) E CL O a) a) c E O U O C I 0 0 -- 5� G O 00 a--+ 0- .� E E E U O O O U Z D LO O N N r- 0 C N Q O N N D C E O U O C I 0 0-- E LL 1 1 V m LL ►0 i ► n LO O N N r- 0 C N Q O N N D C E O U O C I a--+ f6 a--+ Ln 4-0 C:�N f6 � a--+ DC N DC � ► n LO O N N r- 0 C N Q O N N D C E O U O C I N aA U U -0 fa U = — aA aA a --i N O N oc z oc LO 0 N N \ 0 CL 0 a) a) c E 0 U 0 c I ' :0 4 �• 1 7 f r r - TOWN OF VA10 VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July25, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: Aworkshop to reintroduce the Vail Village CharacterArea Preservation Project, an initiative to examine the Town's current regulations, design standards and guidelines applicable to Vail Village. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Vail Village_Character Area_Presentation_Memo_072516.pdf Staff Memorandum 7-25-16 PEC_Intro Meeting-.pdf Pages—from-2014—PEC 0728.pdf A. Draft PEC Power Point Presentation, July 25, 2016 B. PEC Minutes, July 28, 2014 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 2016 SUBJECT: A workshop to reintroduce the Vail Village Character Area Preservation Project, an initiative to examine the Town's current regulations, design standards and guidelines applicable to Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The purpose of this workshop is to reintroduce the Vail Village Character Area Preservation Project; a project to ensure the special character of Vail Village is not just maintained but also enhanced through the Vail Village Master Plan. The Vail Village Character Area Preservation project has reviewed the Vail Village Master Plan, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations to address the adopted problem statement. The following problem statement was developed in conjunction with the Vail Town Council and has guided the process, discussion and outcomes. As buildings in the Village continue to redevelop or as other changes occur to the physical features of Vail Village, are the Town's current regulations, design standards and guidelines sufficient to ensure that the special character of Vail Village is not just maintained but also enhanced. Five elements have been identified through the public process with the community and the Planning and Environmental Commission as needing to be addressed. Those elements are as follows: • Landmarks o Public places and spaces o Pedestrian streets and corridors o Iconic features Application boundaries of the Urban Design Guide Plan o Possible expansion o Clarification of when a property is within the boundaries Non -conforming properties and redevelopment potential o Height in excess of permitted o Dwelling units and GRFA in excess of permitted o Site coverage in excess of permitted o Incentive to redevelop when currently in excess of permitted Architectural Character o Maintaining a sense of a Vail as a special/identifiable place o Allowing for variety o Core verses outlining areas • Specific Design Elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan o Retail store fronts o Building height o Sun/shade of outdoor spaces o Importance of outdoor dining decks/patios Staff has attached a draft PowerPoint presentation prepared by Braun and Associates which discusses these elements in greater depth and with imagery (Attachment A). Staff has provided links to the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan under the attachments section of this memorandum for review (Attachments C and D). II. BACKGROUND On February 18, 2009, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008, a resolution that provided for certain updates to the Vail Village Master Plan. One of the more significant updates to the plan was the addition of an objective recognizing the "historic" importance of architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features with the goal of preserving the existing character of Vail Village. In addition, one new policy statement was added to the plan to further the newly stated objective. The policy statement was developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. Finally, action steps were suggested as immediate follow-up actions necessary to implement the goals of this Plan. To that end, the Vail Village Master Plan was updated to include the following language: GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. Town of Vail Page 2 1.4 Objective: (in part) Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. 1.4.1 Policy: The historical importance of structures, landmarks, plazas and other similar features shall be taken into consideration in the development review process. 1.4.2 Policy: The town should grant flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of its regulations and design guidelines to help protect and maintain the existing character of Vail Village. 1.4.3 Policy: Identification of "historic" importance shall not be used as the sole means of preventing or prohibiting development in Vail Village. GOAL #1 Action Steps: (in part) 6. Compile a list and develop a map identifying the location of potential structures, landmarks, plazas and other similar features that may be of historical importance. On October 18, 2011 the Vail Town Council discussed Vail Village Historic Preservation and Landmark Designation. As a part of the discussion information was provided on historic preservation, preservation programs, creation of historic districts, common property owner concerns regarding historic designation, possible benefits of a historic district, etc. At the public hearing the Vail town Council was asked to respond to the following question: Should Town staff pursue a public process with the community to discuss preserving and protecting historic structures and landmarks in Vail Village and implementing any regulatory tools that may be necessary to carry out the Town's development objectives? The Vail Town Council directed staff to pursue an initiative to preserve and protect historic structures and landmarks in Vail Village. On November 20, 2012 the Vail Town Council was introduced to the Vail Village Character Study that staff and Tom Braun of Braun and Associates was beginning. At the hearing The Vail Town Council was asked to affirm "The Question at Hand" (question provide under summary section of this memorandum). The Vail Town Council affirmed the direction that the project would take and the question it would seek to answer. Town of Vail Page 3 On February 7, 2013 several focus group sessions were conducted to obtain input and feedback on the initiative. Staff and the consultant have placed the comments heard from the focus groups into the following categories: Near Unanimous Consensus The character of the Village is important to Vail's identity, it sets Vail apart, makes Vail unique. It is important to maintain this, to hold onto, reinforce the original vision for the Village. The Village is great, by and large the regulations/guidelines we have in place are working, with only a very few exceptions the new buildings have added/strengthened/reinforced the Village's character The Village core is distinct from the rest of the Village, "character" is strongest in this area. Some variation to the literal interpretation of the "Swiss Alpine village" is OK, not all buildings will be perfect and not all buildings need to be, an anomaly here and there is OK. With regard to buildings, maintaining existing scale of the Village core is critically. There is no one single building in the Village that would rise to "landmark status", rather it is the scale of buildings, the views, the plazas and public spaces, the pedestrian flow, dining decks are what set the Village apart. Iconic improvements — Covered Bridge. The Clock Tower (albeit no clear consensus as to whether the existing clock tower is worthy of preservation or whether having a clock tower in this location is important) Guidelines may need a refinement here or there, but no major overhaul of system is needed. General sense of what is most important — 1 . Building scale 2. Public spaces/pedestrian flow/vitality and street life 3. Quality of design/construction/materials 4. Architecture Widely Held Consensus Some modest degree of additional height in Core might be acceptable (to address floor to ceiling "expectations" of guests) Greater building scale is acceptable outside of the Core (within reason) Design controls (UDGP) to further reinforce the Village's establish character should be expanded to area outside of the Core (East Village, Meadow Drive) Town of Vail Page 4 Street life, vitality, activity ... specifically outdoor dining decks are critical to the character of the Village. Some Degree of Consensus The most important change needed to design guidelines for the Village is to allow for/encourage the use of high quality materials (code talk for materials other than stucco). Guidelines need to encourage creativity/broader expression (while still respecting "alpine" character) More flexibility is needed with regard to window treatments (don't mandate divided panes, allow for larger glass). Need to resolve conflict in Guidelines that require landscaping that blocks visibility of store fronts. Other Pertinent Comments When do you stop using increased levels of development as an incentive for redevelopment? The physical area of "the Village" is considered to extend from Vail Road to Vail Valley Drive, maybe to Manor Vail. Water is very important — both Gore Creek and the water features in the Village. Every site/building is unique, has its own characteristics/considerations that will influence review process. Mechanical — needs to be requirement to screen. What to do with non -conforming buildings — how will they ever have motivation to re -develop? Lodge at Vail, Sitzmark, etc. On February 11, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission was introduced to the project and the desired outcomes upon completion. On March 11, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session to begin discussion on elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations which may need to be reexamined to address the project's problem statement. The five following topical areas of the Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide were discussed. The topical areas were developed through the focus group participation, staff's, and consultant's experience and observations. The five topics area were as follows: Town of Vail Page 5 • Architectural Character — Vail Village was "originally conceived as a mountain resort in the pattern of a quaint European alpine Village. Do the Town's guidelines further this goal, what types of architectural expression, use of materials, etc. may be appropriate while still holding true to this vision? • The Urban Design Guide Plan and Design and Design Considerations —Where do these guidelines currently apply, where should they apply? Future re -development potential of properties that currently exceed allowable height, GRFA, etc. — A number of properties in VV that currently exceed zoning standards are considered potential candidates for redevelopment. Historically, properties in Vail have increased in size when re -developed. How can Town encourage re -development while at same time maintain the scale of buildings in the Village? • Landmark Designation — Are there improvements in the Village that warrant designation of "landmark" status? • Specific Elements of Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations — Eleven specific elements of the UDGP have been identified that may warrant refinement/clarification. On April 1, 2014, the Vail Town Council received and update on the progress of the project and directed staff to move forward and complete Phase 1 of the project. On May 12, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing to revisit the project and bring new members up to the current level of knowledge. There was a discussion regarding the selected comparable communities and the fact that they were not ski communities. It was explained why the comparable communities were selected. Staff was specifically asked to speak with Carmel, California to discuss their tools to maintain character, bulk, and mass in the commercial core. A discussion with the planning director revealed that the primary factor limiting control development and redevelopment was water supply. There is no additional water resource so no land use can become more intense. Zoning regulations and a historic building inventory/registry also provide for significant restriction and review. On July 28, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously forwarded a recommendation of approval to proceed forward with the Vail Village Character Area Preservation initiative to examine and implement approaches to address the identified elements to ensure the special character of Vail Village is not just maintained but also enhanced through the application and implementation Vail Village Master Plan, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations. On September 2, 2014 the Vail Town Council concluded Phase 1 of the Vail Village Character Area Preservation project. This first phase included an analysis of the Town of Vail Page 6 existing regulatory documents, a comparison with comparable communities and identification of the areas for future work. III. NEXT STEPS The Community Development Department intends to develop a work plan/scope of work and budget for Phase 2 of the project that follows the Town Council's adoption of the July 28, 2014 Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft PEC PowerPoint Presentation, July 25, 2016 B. PEC Minutes, July 28, 2014 C. Vail Village Master Plan D. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Town of Vail Page 7 ca a F- 4-0 L- 0 O a) 4- 0 _C/) c6 O O .5 O O c6 L- O O U O 4-0O E m U- 0 cn cn U O O O 4-0 E O � E 0-O U O O O � �•O �:.4-0 o 4-0 O cn U C6 O .x E O cn o E o O� U O �w U Q N In 7 O cn O cn a� x O O U � O cn .cn E O c� O cn U 0 0 0 zz a cn W D LU LU v LU w O 0 { p�r i W C� D O J F- LU W w F— W C� D DC m W 4 O MLMQ LU a z LU o J O u r W Tw L � i,A f — J 1 f -*•� -0 A 4!.;' !.; 'T . LU 0 a. LU LU w pid LL. 4= CD F--- r Z O H LU W 2 H a) Jc: fa a) L O a) C� A--+ A--+ cu O L O �o O A--+ cn O .cn L a) Jc:fa O Q L O CL O O a) �o U .C/) CL O a) L zz cn Z - �J O �r ■O cncn cn .VJ nm, M 2 m cn � M U N % 7C3 E N N cn (6 Z3 �� U N m " N� Qtr U+� m N O � U x� L N � U N ) �� 70 O U Mm X a) cn A -Z N N 70 p N co U > cn n �.cn O ■L. T cn O m E }, U) N a) }' to — M �_ co cn � N NU L .cn + 42 — m � mQ O + +� i Q O �~ 0 N L -r-O 7 M N N m . cn Ocn Mw N }' > M N - � U Q— _ +_ � � N c `� C O ~ a--+ 70 - C •� N � M � m m cn L U N uj m }, m N M O� N� O> —_ U CDL � C) cn C/) N — 0) U • — + N N +� E -o °� > L T N M> }, N L 1- 70 M N +- N� — O }, - Vma� N E S Ncn O� 6 O O U Q Nm� 4-, NNO E cn —N O ca 0 N m -r-N m cn > w Q L1 LJ i Q 0 ore c J4—J V) L m � m 42 cn T W a) • — }/ Ucn E m N N cn (6 �m cn U N m " N� QAC U+� m N O U X LN O U N ) :� 70 M X m a)Ucn N N 70 0 N con U > cn 0).Cn O L n O U) N }' to — M �_ co cn � N N U L .cn O U }, N Q� N N _ >, m �'� M O N C: 7M C O 704-j a) � U'- >.I MT (6 0 (6 N �' a--' 70 M M N }' Q = N +�-P-U 4-j}, a _ N M E O 0 `� 0) N O O N ~ a--+ 0 - CY)cn •cn N � 0 � m m cn L }, N M O a) IM of U QU•L L� � cn cn N cn U •— L +, �, N N +, OU N Q0 tea) E L � T a) m> M> }, a) 0 L 1- 70 M N N N E cn N O D M O N 0 0 Q N m� L O— a) EL- cn(6 � a)m � " �c_m .Ocn �E ._0_ �� CDL �� c� . w Q L1 LJ i Q 0 ore er� - -0;0 , "o p pop, um v m i 14 ti k w - mom-, � . I.. - .. >. , . . r � � 7 '\ - '� % 0, ■ �.� ' �. f ` § • ¥ - .. � t : . . � - !��! Er I w . mom-, lk �.. ;. I � �.x -_ . ~��`.�`,• `':.vim ' � t Ml -{ _ T - - ern• 1 � j r {1 14 • + 4- 14 L � F #5 W4 till ' k ■.L9 J , lop LU Cl) 0 z W J a. Z3 L. O F--- F44 0 Z - J Q W 0 w O O 0 n C O 0 z W F- 0 W m O J Q O 0 F- 0 W n O w a. ca U) m N O C� Jc: O O Co E O — U O O � O O to Jc: a) O OJc: 0 -6--1 O O C� O O Jc: O O O U Co O to C� O Jc: U O Jc: � U O � O � O C� ca O O 0� O O a) 2:O U) a) QL C� U O U C� QL 4- 0 O U) C:O U) m U) U) O C� LN O U) Cu — O O O OO �-j � Co U) O a) E O O � O a > a O m O O to }, O Q 0- . O C� O E _O 0- i� O O O ca O C:E O -6--1O 0 0 zz a L a L. ■ ■ LU V E W ca n ^L 4-0 �W Y / cu W 0) cu ■ cu > L r W cu L N A LL CD F--- VJ O m L- 70 .cn O U . a) 0 cn 0� O L- U C/) N 70 7C3 C: (6 C/) C: J C: O O U : M 5 � EL— Cn 0 U N O N }, 7 L:3U M F Q N N A LL CD F--- r S■ ti 1- �rl......... ■ W ca 0- cu W li a •� a) a C), cu CUn r S■ ti 1- �rl......... 17 '1 17 i W O C6 L- O a .C/) cu c) U 0- C: a) o) • Fn =3 a) mum CU a D , C: N C6 }, C6 n L A--+ a cn cn . 0-0 CU O U W = C: W -1-a O cn -0 CU C: +� O L • - cn U L a) (n cn O O •% CU 0 0 U 0-0 U. C: -0 CU � cn •U L a) zz i W 0 U cn O N _cn 0) C/) m m N E O m C6 cn O a) °o CDL _0 CD �cn a) cn cn cn o c� O C: U ° O CL o 0CDL 0 to- +-j M U a �' a) o M C O c 0 .0 ECD J 4-jcn E W a)cnO cn C6 ocu o0 � M LJJ O 0 M V 0 o C6 c� C6 0 0 m 0� c� O � LL m U D m Q J O Q D � � N C6 n cn N U N zz C/) C/) oc/)o 4-0 }, 0)'cn caCn ' L— > a) ca = 4- a) >cu O ca O C/) � O aC/) 4-0 > U � 4-0 O U O O C6 a Q U E C6 4-0a cn CU 0 cn O cp a) -a tea) �� — C6 O m ' -a 4 >o�cn moo E -C U cn 1� a) -cu o —C O }, O 0O ., � U O U .� 0 0 `� U O .C6 O _ U cu> O CU " EU Q � ' �0 >cnE o cCU is -t � O O E O OEcnd. m o— 2-0 UM U N • • • 0 0 zz 4-0 ♦--+ 40 E L O O a) c6 � N O CU I a) cn 4-0 L 4 ca O OC:p I ca 0 cu C/)0 � � 0 C: C6 c: a) E o 0 -0O cn U cn O `�cli o cn cu 00 p cn CU O 6 a) • — ca a) — o a) -6 O }, C6 � C6 o cn O U � O C6 � 0 O a- — Ocn cn c) U cu _ -0 O O cu ' cu C6 ov � •� •� O a LL oo v, cn a) z zz cn L O O H O O r, W E 0- 0 O O 0 a) O 0- 0 r, n L (D � 0 U O U) U}' c� a) E a) U W O }' U J -- U � '— U Q O 0- Cn r, 0 a t� 0 4) L i 4 0) ' � cn-r- O cn O E � > C f 4-0 m C/) a) E >-0 a) -0 Co O O cn >O 0.0 uj cn - = C:C E }' O O O Ln D- O t U U O �� I-= � 4-- � > a) 4 R3 sc 'b �0 �b } 0.4 a c� 0 i L O O 4-0 a) — W cu W � U � 'QL C6 cu C6 — O CU 4-0 C6 ., > C/) O � � cu QL L— C6 L- a) C6 4- O 0 Cn cu ' CnC:O �, Ur U C6 � 4-0 D O QL Q. E < C6 CUO 4-0 QL—_ to }' Q x — '� > W CU E — 4-0 0 O O 0Z) z 0� . zz r. ^i i 0 C6 O U CU QL QL C6 ca �' a)' L— C6 cu a) O 4-0 CU Cn C6 C O a> O CU c E C6 O C6 CU a CU a) D > C6 n L U _ C6 O 'Q O QL ai Q cam C/) 1 W ca O cn CL L a) a) a) CU a 0 - m E }; a�CU E C _0 CY)m ca E a) '— -6-0 0 m UC: cu L U > L U 0 O N O N Q .L O U" 0 U m Q. to N co O O 0 0 0 (u Jc: LL C/) U Z EL0- U E 14 0 4-0 ca U U ca . L- 4-0 a) a a) n t CI i 4.- {M1 ~kms TAk, cn a� U C6 r�.L V c 'n W U C6 O U U C6 4-0 (C/) W a a) n M 7 2 N a) E E O a) N zz U �= aI a '(� NCLp •� to > CL m N U :3 N L O Om Q d IZ- C C p cnQ O N O O _0 IZ- .L N O cn.0 0 E N cp Q CY) C/) N UCL� 0 V cn m C6 .x U N U)N . � L C/) � O O o p C/)� Q L � C6 ' L O O4 � N -0v m a N O N N U O C C6 — O L > 0 L O \ cn }' C CU m O 0 O N CL N c N � Q N (� E • N OU a �� U 0 E O a) � U O Q CIL O a- Q CL o) a)r--+ ♦--+ 4 I E m c CU O p = N N _0O x U 2 a) a) ccnn3 z n . 2 N a) E E O a) zz U �= aI a NCLp CL CL U L O d p cnQ N (� 0 N O 0 E cp Q .0) cn N 0 V C:m-1--j U O U . •X •� . C/)0 Q � N U m C:c O m N O p }' N (� " O p O CLN cn a �� 0 E CIL O Q C O N N N ccnn3 cc N cn Q (� � � O � OCL O QU 'L -1--o'L }' cn N Q N Q cp c: O E c 0 c" N..cnCam E N to cn E� N a) - p O 00 n N v _ CoO _ Q Q Q M cu Q Q ca > Lu K-, aj 2 { 4 0 C6 � O > cn > 4-0U '0 O 4-0 cu cn > p O C/) ca U C/) a) = - > O U a) o 4-0 '� a v 'cU O W a) }+ ~ � — }' C/) C6 C6 4_+ C6 C/) O C6 C/)— U ' Ca cn C/) C6 > cn 0) CU > �a)�_�'� O U uj C6 = C6 OCU >1 -0 40 O O O — — 4-0 Q.}' a) cuQ O O O O a) cn c � j O Q O -a C6 L -a >1 }, O E > 'U O x UQ CU LU o ca o _ CD z — 0� . h I OCY) 0 L� ■ L \ ^ W n ^ ' W C/) 0 i p }, CY) O a) Z -0 L)=•5 m U a� V/ > W La) OL V r� i >4 CD F--- 0 lot 0 0 L a MA 1\ � CL A' � 1l.. T O O > . O 42 CY) .7 U C/) C N O N N > � to O O Q -o a) N N 07 .� N _0 N C/) C/) -0 4-0CY).OC O Q O U o 0 CL - O p C) O L N N Q� - o \ m O � m O N" M O C- o)Z-0 QM CO 3: 0 0 0 0) El N N E E O a) Rk,W, .L Ln 0 O N ui z z }, U �! ^' W O L NO > E O Q CY) U co o U N !E CL U O o C/) a) CY) 7T) � " O � CU c U �— C:O N U ca > . .L CL p m � C� CLc U 'Ecm cn > O. — .0) �_ N 'X -C lotN 0 C:4- •— O .m O U .— cn a' E 0 O L U O ja' a = Q C: 0) O M cmO 0 co .O CL i O N x a) �_ _ a) O E 0 N > � O � L U cn N N " O a) LO c:a) U _ O . — N (D O a) 42> L � CL . — cn 'L O Q N cp N' O-0 p N O X(� a) a) =3Z N ' E w C fu cn O; O O O > ca E 4-0 xUw O O O a) CD cn Z a 0) El N N E E O a) Rk,W, .L Ln 0 O N z z }, U �! ^' W r. L NO > o U N () CL 0.—.— cn c U ca > . .L .� p CLc U 0 + O. — .0) .p ♦--' .m U O O _r C: Q U M cmO 0 co .O CL CY) ��Off\ �_ _ cp > o 'X N O a) c:a) 0 O . — U (D N L � cn . — cn 'L O Q N O-0 p U N ' E U � cn O; O O cn >% N O OCL O p a v E p O Q Q U _ w L V 4) V L .c - > O 0 m C: O U) .� U � .> � N N — N am :zU 04-0 .� cn �= Q a N 'C O U 0 L ca ja ca ' O � m � O > Qcn c � L '� j O ca L a) N}' U N (� N U += !E N � � (� 4-0 U � — O O p cn ca IZZ L Z, Q > ♦= U > O 0 4-0 U `r_ NN Q � • — O C/) . CY) CY) cua a) O O U N C6 O p N ZCL 3: 0 Ask1h. 29 "N iMI so w > N E > • 0 Q Lcn N N 2 C: Q U 0 cn p U_ U N Q N 0 N �• N -r— a) N L to O Ncn •CU:3N to E O U .. 0E p CU Q N 0)C`• N -r—.L fn •> N N -C �• cn cn Se N a N .-0 cu > 2a) ?� cn_ � — •— CY) 0 :3 cu •tn .� cnO > •� D C:�, a) >% -r—> O •a) O +� :3p U cn p>% 0 L6 m N - > )3:a) o � E cy) O O m � U U) .-. N .CY) > 07 O O O .tf cn Q E O cn cnN O Q N N a) U } If � N cn 4-7 N `r_ Q N cn O cn N N cn O cn L a 0 U }, O Q U N m CL a) � a, .� .S 0 w +0 O N L Q. C/) N o C cn O N 'U cn O O U U :' 'a p O O cn _0 m 4-0 O E O cn E N C b] ca O W N _N O cnm .a) ca cn O O U cn v N U N cn O N a) L O N .CL cn N U cn 14bi O N U < .O O CU O UL— L— a) N 07 c O a) O N m IZ Cli N N oa)0 0 E o cn C: p- O L CU O CL W � c a) U cn a) cn N CL a) E m cn N cn Em .a) O O 0 rm ca a) O O . cp ♦--+ % . f.. L cu �J a) O fJf� E If cn O N 4-0U C CU O � O U cn N cn O (� c O N O i U o IZO 0 N � U CY a) O U N C c� L V m L w L V 4) V L N 0 IZ— IZ— O N N a) ' (� .� � O a) N L � U O N C/) Q N E cn _N W O U cn O U cn m .a) m E Q N cn cn4 O O Q E O CD O U Q E ■O T cn O cn O U N Q cnm O O cn m a) m A- cn m L U) a) O M E cuc E m N C/) N N o 0 O cn N 'O _U m cn cn C: N N E E N N W W N Q � U U cn Q � J N CD CD CD CD cn m CD .m N CD Q _cn m .a) m E m 1i1 cn N U N co zz L V L m Ja L V i V L I zz a) IZ- a) W TS1 C/)r. Cli • >E OV/ a) / 'm C/) O U C C/) CU CQ m N LL a) CL o _ p-0 � � C: '> CU 'tn ' — O O O +� � -0 N L � O U a) >., � p •— q � > -0 E .; O > + m L � O CU cn N� U O— O O O O � 00 > � m _0N N � L C •— O NU O 0)o �.� o `--�U }' U L N"� N N O •� :3_ U U � L N Q U m> S U N N �+ -C3 m �0a)-5Eo-0� N D O O '� � p� U N� EO � cn > O N m ) - U N a) m a) >> 1 � .. V caU <-0 -2 a) Lu o w a) E C�� Q — a c� 0 O al X HP CD _0 4-0 0 a) L- 0 D, 40 a) .� CL x LU U a) Q cLa .CL U J 0 0 0 a U ) C6 QL C1) a cn a� c� " cn to - O E O U -a a) 4-0 � - CU cuO - U �CL a) -a U a Ca) c N Cu a) a) O V cn O .E O CO 00 � a cn a� c� a C) 0 O (n MimiE cn . � . '�. • ��L YLry y Q O O E E O U O �J LL CD a O4_0O CU O Oa) cn O C6 U — O E cn m O �C6.O.�— O 4_0`� � C: O O }' C6 -0 OL OL a) ca �J LL CD a C) 0 O 4a E W v cn 0 O i O AW cn 1 i } i a) O 0 E E O U 0 }+ V / a }+ a) CU cn 'cnc U — .cn .. m U � cn O O O � � O c/i O C��E cn O 0.0 O E < 11 a C) 0 O U) E W cn jF Iwo 1 A 3! I. F L 0 C/)C6 C6 ._ O O 0 O O m O E O D U O U— O O w cn . _ Co U a -a -0 J O O x 0 0 0 Q m O LL U 5 cn a cn a C) 0 0 N W cn L.. O .� cn CU O CU E C U CU C6 Q U CU CU � CU � C6 a) cn a) m ch /A) 0 c / C6 cn O cn CU .. cn 4-0 O U 4— O c O � cn C6 U O CU O O U CU f.. a cn a 0 • I l a C) 0 0 N W cn v N r — cl) n L .0 0= O=a � ♦..r n 0 . Q O O E E O U O cn C:> cn0CD M �U O cn � Q O•— c6 U cn N � CY) CU ca cn 0.cn _,, o a) cn a) a) o(D a� ca �� 0 -0O D O 0--c cn a) �cn EO > cn 0 > C: '" c6 O O 0-0-0 o ca can- O .— cn = " Ov O U O cn C6 0 a cn a 010 O 4a E W V M� m . 2 Cn Ja V 7 - a) a) c m x� m 4-1 O E N o a) c ° m m 0 +� 0 M cn M +� O N 0 cn U_ _0 cn N '� " ' cn+�-+ cn N O O N U U cn'� c }' + O � O L L cn E .� O O O O O N -60 C:-1 4-j (6 cn L T N � m N OO4-j � Q O> N CD: ON 0L UQ cn O cn L N �_ U 0 0 cn N 70 E O m0 cn O N L N U N — N L c + .M > O OU 0 � :3 0 o� m a a) ' M 4-j 0 � 0 o a) a� Q� Q � ` O 4-j mJ r L a) N W w W N N N E .cn cn p m N OU 'n -0 O cn L (6 cn U +, O O n O-0 O p o U — U N Q-0 O 7a o) L � CD m � Q c 2 0 N�: E rm m O E N E ■O T m zz a C) O 4a E W cn U C6 O 0 0 0 y� 4-0 cn A) I 4-0 4-0 cu Z CU a) C6 _U m U U w 2 CO _ O 0- L0 0-20 O0 O0 in O C: - --+ O E O OcuO m U U 0 0 0 y� D W H W C)C) r r f r ^ { rV^/ V / U O QL C6 O L— QL QL C6 C6 4-0 C: O a �> L- O QL O O O O O } EQL O O 4 cn � U > .C:O Q O 4-0 4-0o cn E � O O a) E ._ O cncn L 40- 4-0 a v _a) E O O O J > Z �U O �� n 0 O O E _O W U c U O O c - CO C6 � C6 0 4-0 � U C6 C6 � U O � C6 O O U U j O 4-0 a) a) U Q O U) r r f r ^ { rV^/ V / U O QL C6 O L— QL QL C6 C6 4-0 C: O a �> L- O QL O O O O O } EQL O O 4 cn � U > .C:O Q O 4-0 4-0o cn E � O O a) E ._ O cncn L 40- 4-0 a v _a) E O O O J > Z �U O �� r r f { ■ • ■ 4= }+ ■ ' U V •O W QL � � V `~ E O O O a > V um Wcn am ZLL c� 4-0 O U) W Cl) 'QL J W O 0U) L. Commissioner Martin encouraged the applicant to replace all the existing siding on the south elevation as it was showing its age and likely beyond repair. Carl Mueller stated he would convey that message to Mr. Peters. Commissioner Pratt mentioned that the plans showed a single bathroom for three bedrooms and that there should not be a future variance application to incorporate a bathroom within the setbacks. There was no public comment. Commissioner Cartin asked if a condition should be added to address the siding issue. It was agreed that it was not necessary because it would be addressed during the DRB review. 90 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on approaches to address identified elements to ensure the special character of Vail Village is not just maintained but also enhanced through the Vail Village Master Plan as an outcome of the Vail Village Character Area Preservation project, an initiative to examine the Town's current regulations, design standards and guidelines applicable to Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 6-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation pursuant to the memorandum. He also spoke to his conversation with Carmel, CA, per the direction provided at the previous Commission hearing. Tom Braun stated the discussion today would center around the development review process and the five topics for further evaluation. He proceeded to give a presentation per his Power Point. Expansion of the Application of the Urban Design Guide Plan Tom Braun introduced the topic. Commissioner Cartin mentioned the difference between the "should" and "shalls" and how the revised UDGP might address that difference. Commissioner Kurz spoke to a concern regarding how the expansion of the UDGP would/could be applied to buildings that have already redeveloped. How and what effect would there be. Believed it was important to bring as much of the area under control of the plan. Suggested the Village Core may have differing requirements. Commissioner Cleveland expressed reservations about expanding the area for the UDGP. He stated that when the Council decided to move forward with this project the scale of the Village was the issue of concern. It was about the Village Core and how to preserve its uniqueness in terms of architecture and scale. The lack of color has always been of concern. There should be an ability to have differing neighborhoods. He mentioned that Meadow Drive has turned out well and any overlay expanding the restricting design is not the way to go. Page 2 Commissioner Pratt said that the UDGP should be expanded and that the peripheral areas should tie into the core. Having a small scale village surround by New York scale buildings is not the way to go. Steel and stone did not make Vail famous. He discussed how one or two bad snow years causes a shift in thinking during the review of development applications which tends to turn to revenue generation as a key consideration. The documents being discussed need to provide long term guidance for town councils, planning and environmental commission, and design review boards, as there can be strong and weak boards implementing the regulations. Commissioner Cleveland statted that if the UDGP limits were to be expanded the incorporation of strong language define various sub -areas and what is appropriate. Landmarks. Tom Braun introduced the topic. Warren Campbell raised a question regarding Vail's history in American ski heritage and the potential to preserve that heritage. Commissioner Hopkins described scenarios where drywall was holding up joists and studs when describing some of the initial construction in town. When Vail became a destination resort it changed everything with regard to guest expectations. Commissioner Cartin expressed that scale and the quaint feeling is most important to preserve Commissioner Cleveland discussed the significance of the Gorsuch clock tower. Let's not hamstring potential development, but let's preserve those landmarks that are quintessential Vail. Vail doesn't have a lengthy history like other communities (mining, agricultural). 50 years is a short period of time. Vail sells service and at the current price point guests have certain expectations of quality. He was not sure the battle to identify structures as landmarks needed to be fought anymore. Commissioners Webb, Kurz and Pratt agreed. Pratt expressed concern legislating the preservation of open space that is privately owned. Commissioner Kurz expressed the need to capitalize on certain locations, encouraging developers to build landmarks. Warren Campbell asked if anything should be done today to establish structures worth saving in the future? Commissioner Pratt said to encourage landmarks could be problematic, as landmarks to past generations have a lesser meaning to young generations. Tom Braun then spoke to the mechanisms other communities have developed in order to preserve their character. The communities of Santa Fe, Park Cirty and Santa Barabra were discussed in regards to what they do to preserve and protect their communities and how that may be applicable in Vail. Commissioner Cleveland stated that real estate was a commodity and what people desired changes over time and therefore any adopted document should allow for change. Page 3 Commissioner Kurz said he was still struggling will how to define landmarks. Tom Braun suggested another approach to addressing landmarks could be a discussion of scale and architecture that needs to be protects. Non -conforming Properties and Redevelopment Tom Braun introduced the topic. He identified scale as potentially most important factor to include into the UDGP. Commissioner Pratt said the Covered Bridge building presented an impractical application of the 60/40 height limit. He stated the need for a pragmatic approach to regulating height. Maybe a 10% variation is warranted. Pratt then discussed the need for constant upkeep for buildings. Commissioner Hopkins agreed and added a concern regarding vacant properties. Commissioner Cleveland stated that it is not the government's role to regulate upkeep. Commissioner Cleveland thought the proposal presented by Tom were appropriate. Tom then discussed architectural character and the lack of articulation within the UDGP in this regard when compared to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Commissioner Pratt mentioned compatibility as an important factor worth considering a development proposal. Sometimes bad projects have been approved due to a lack of stringent criteria. Commissioner Cartin used the Wall Street Building as an example of how a project can change between a PEC approval and a DRB approval based upon each groups review elements. He agreed with the idea of establishing criteria which were focused on height variances in the Village. Architectural Character and Specific Elements of the UDGP Tom Braun introduced the topic. Several PEC members agreed that compatibility is important as discussed by Tom. Commissioner Pratt stated than more compatibility language may provide for enforceable regulations while allowing for flexibility. The Village does not need guidelines and standards as detailed as the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Commissioner Kurz mentioned the need to upgrade the graphics within the UDGP and define the architectural character elements desired. He also spoke to the need to forward recommendations to other boards regarding projects. There needs to be an effective tool to understanding the rationale when Council overturns a PEC action. Commissioner Pratt discussed how Swiss, Austrian, and Tyrolean architecture are all very different. He added the new fad is mountain contemporary. When need to decide and clarify Vail's architecture. Page 4 Tom Braun then discussed identifying opportunities to expand retail Commissioner Pratt stated the streetscape in some areas (1 Willow Bridge Rd) as the result of expanded retail resulted in an expanse of paving without and softscape. There should have been some landscaping incorporated into the redesign. Commissioner Cartin cited examples of island planters that work within Town and allowing for private property to propose planters on Town property as well. Tom Braun then discussed transparency/windows. There is a lot language in this section that is ambiguous. It needs to be more definitive. Tom went on to discuss landscaping and sun/shade. Commissioner Pratt mentioned Arrabelle as a poor example of excessive shading in the winter on the north side adjacent to Lift House Lodge. Others agreed that it is one of the few mistakes with the Lionshead redevelopment. Commissioner Cleveland suggested no additional shading of a street should be permitted. Tom Braun mentioned dining decks and patios as features of the Village worth preserving due to their contribution to street life. The Commissioners echoed the importance of the deck and patios. Tom also identified public plazas as another important element of the Village that should be identified as such in the UDGP. Commission Pratt agreed. Tom Braun stated that rooftop equipment should also be addressed in the UDGP. Pam Hopkins said noise needs to be regulated in the UDGP as well. Tom then mentioned a few housekeeping items —the roles of the boards, calculating height, updating maps and graphics. Commissioner Cleveland asked about the next steps. Warren Campbell explained that this recommendation would be taken forward to the Town Council and if there was agreement to move forward with a process of exploring amendments staff would propose a budget and time line for such an effort. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Unplatted, (Liftside/Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Table to August 11, 2014 MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 4. Approval of July 14, 2014 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-0 5. Information Update Page 5 Ad Name: 12260670A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P33 MW nay PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, 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 7/22/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/22/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/26/2016. 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 07/26/2016. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 25, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-13-5, 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 (PEC16-0025). -45 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro 3.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). - 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker 4.Approval of Minutes 1)June 27, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 2)July 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 5. Informational Update 1)An informational update on the community recy- cling program. - 15 min. 2)Vail Village Character Area Update - 60 min. 6.Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- laroffice hours at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. 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- 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 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 July 22, 2016 (122 60670) Ad Name: 12233789A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Vail Daily hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 25, 2016 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, PROOF OF PUBLICATION 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 STATE OF COLORADO } Linkage; Methods of Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6, Inclusionary Zoning; Methods of Mitiga- tion, Vail Town Code, concerning the payment of l SS Fees in Lieu of providing Employee Housing and I setting forth details in regard thereto COUNTY OF EAGLE } (PEC16- Applicant:t: Tow Town of Vail Planner: Alan Nazzaro I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Cal- printed, in whole or in part and published in the County culations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code con - cerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor of Ea le, State of Colorado, and has a eneral circulation g g Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard thereto -002 Applicantt:: Town Vaai l therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously of Planner: Chris Neubecker and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop - ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice 1� q g Sign language interpretation is available upon 24-hour Please and advertisement as re uested. q quest, with all notification. call 970-479-2356,Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, forrinformation. Published July 8, 2016 in the Vail Daily. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, (12233789) 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 7/8/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/8/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/13/2016. 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 07/13/2016. ( �L-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 r