Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-09 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) September 9, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Stockmar, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, John Ryan Lockman, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez Absent: Pam Hopkins Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 30 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0040) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence introduced the application. He provided some background on the project as a whole. There are six applications that will result in meeting the Town's Council's objective, which is to sell this piece of land to allow for future development. He described the location of the lot behind the West Vail Fire Station, adjacent to the Chamonix Development. Spence explained the order of the applications, which is important to allow for each subsequent application. Three applications are presented today, and other applications will follow. First application is the Chamonix Master Plan. Some elements of the proposal require changes to the Master Plan before moving forward. Spence described that the second application is a variance to development prohibited on slopes over 40%. A rezoning can't be approved without the variance. Third item is the rezoning. Part of the proposed lot is currently zoned Housing (H), and another portion is zoned General Use (GU). Stockmar asked about the future use of the small triangle piece, and if the Fire Department would ever need this site. Spence — Yes, Fire Station staff have determined they do not need this site. Gillette asked if this is the site that the ambulance district was looking to use. There was general discussion about the ambulance district, and there past consideration for land needs in Vail. Spence described the other applications pending, including the future subdivision, and an amendment to the Development Plan. The Development Plan will include development standards, but does not include detailed design elements at this time. Also, a Conditional Use Permit will be proposed in near future. These applications will prepare the site for future development of the vacant site. Perez —Are you asking us to review all six applications? Spence — These first three applications, in order, can stand on their own. Perez — I'm uncomfortable approving a plan that we have only this morning seen the language. Spence —Apologized for the upload error in the PEC packet. Gillette — Has Town Council already approved this? Is this just a formality for us to review? Spence — No, its not just formality. PEC plays an important role in reviewing these applications. The first application is an amendment to the Chamonix Master Plan and Vail Land Use Plan. The Master Plan was premised on 100% deed restrict housing on this site. But the Vail Town Code allows a portion of sites in the Housing zone district to be built as market rate, unrestricted dwelling units. As proposed, an additional use would be allowed, dwelling units, as allowed in the Housing zone district. Spence described that master plans are not regulatory, but staff supports amending the master plan before moving forward with other applications, so that applications are consistent with the master plan. Staff is proposing to amend the language to allow developments that are consistent with the Housing zone district. Lockman — W by was this not done this way originally? Why not originally write it to be consistent with Housing district? Spence — The master plan was largely a visioning document when first written. There is some disconnect between regulatory and master plan documents. He described the difference between this master plan, and others, such as Vail Village Master Plan, or Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Perez — Online version of packet is still not uploaded. Do you have concerns that this was not available to the public, and was this properly noticed? Neubecker — The online version is now correct. I'm looking at it now. Spence — Proper public notice was posted. The documents do not need to be noticed or posted by any specific time. Perez — I see it is now uploaded, but it was not there an hour ago. Stockmar asked about state law for public notice. Spence — Those notice requirements have been met. Stockmar suggested that staff present all the applications at one time, since they are all linked together. Lockman — Why are other elements of the Chamonix Master Plan not being addressed at this time? Are they not relevant to this project, or not impacted, such as AMI requirements? Gillette — If we do this, but don't have to, you lose the ability to learn from your mistakes. If we wipe it out, we would not know what's been done in the past. Stockmar — Laws and plans are often updated, but they do not change the historical documents, which will still be accessible. Laws and plans are amended all the time, as long as we still have access to what was amended. Spence — For example, the master plan specifically states that all development shall be 100% deed restricted housing. Staff would have a hard time supporting an application that didn't include 100% deed restricted housing, which is one reason we support this change before moving forward with other applications. Kjesbo — Was it always contemplated that this would be broken off for development? Spence — It was discussed, an idea that was thought of. Kurz — Mr. Kjesbo is correct, it was more than a discussion on the periphery when this was originally going through review. Stockmar asked for public comment Neal Shubert, 2345 Lower Traverse Way — Concerns about how our property (Chamonix HOA land) is involved in making this happen. Are we giving up and land to make this happen? Spence explained that the Chamonix HOA president has provided written approval of this application. He explained how the individual unit parcels were subdivided in the past, via a townhome plat. This site is not part of the HOA. Its part of the Chamonix development site, by Town Code applications require HOA approval to submit the application. Formation and operation of the HOA are civil matters. Stockmar — Please remind me of how the townhomes and land around it are owned. Spence explained the ownership format of the townhomes, HOA land, and the future development site. The townhome plat reserved this site for future development, but this site is not subject to the HOA. Gillette asked if the HOA president signing the approval to move forward is a conflict of interest. Spence — HOA president is a Town employee, but was functioning in his role as the HOA president. Neal Shubert — I think it's a conflict of interest. Spence explained that the HOA board voted, as required by the HOA by- laws. This was authorized about a month ago. Perez — Earlier you said that this was taken out of the HOA prior to the first sale. Spence — Yes, this site was removed from the Chamonix Community, through the townhouse plat. However, its part of a development lot and the Town Code requires HOA approval to moving forward. Stockmar — We do not have purview over a private HOA. Neal Shubert — I'm trying to make sure things are done right. We spent a lot of money to buy here. There was a general discussion of the role of the HOA, and its relationship to its members, rather than Town of Vail involvement. Perez — Does the public have any further concerns before we move forward? Neal Shubert — How and where will access be provided? Spence — Explained the development proposed, including 3 market rate dwelling units, and one EHU (minimum 1200 sq. ft.) Total 7,200 sq. ft. of GRFA proposed, largely compatible with Primary Secondary zoning lots. Access will be from Chamonix Lane. We do not know where construction access will be taken. Stockmar — The HOA would need to provide consent for any access through their private land. Spence — The variance is coming before the rezoning, since the land could not be adequately developed without the variance, thus it's not appropriate to rezone without the variance. He described the parts of the lot that are steeply sloped. He provided a photo to explain the site layout. He explained the reasons behind regulations prohibiting development on steep slopes. A variance is required since the property is in the Housing zone district. Similar development in this zone district received variances, such as at Solar Vail for development on steep slopes. Spence described the location and shape of the Fire Department parcel, and the portion that will be combined to form the new development site. The rezoning would only go into effect upon recording the new subdivision plat. Perez- Where is the access to these lots? Spence — From Chamonix Lane, not from Upper or Lower Traverse Way. Stockmar — The Chamonix HOA could grant that access, if it chooses. Spence — Rezoning of this land would be the third step. He provided some context for the other three development applications that will be coming to the PEC. Spence described the formation of the future development site, and the relationship to the minor subdivision and rezoning. Gillette — Why is the General Use parcel important, it does not look developable? Spence — It's about one-quarter of the site, and is also important because of the required setbacks. It's not important to the GRFA, which is set by the PEC. This piece of land makes the site more developable in a traditional manner. Perez — Why are we deleting the last paragraph on pedestrian circulation? Spence — The original master plan discussed pedestrian circulation, but in reality there is not space to install sidewalks. It's not feasible. Stockmar — What about pedestrian circulation on this piece of land? They will only be able to get to it from the firehouse lot, or Chamonix Lane. Spence explained where pedestrian and vehicular access would be provided from Chamonix Lane, the same as all other developments on this road. Gillette — Who was noticed about these applications? Spence —Adjacent property owners. He showed such properties on a map. Notice included all item on today's agenda. Spence described the development plan, and what is required by the Vail Town Code. He explained how the main development standards would be included, such as height and setbacks, and GRFA. But the applicant is requesting that the details of the site plan and building design be delayed until a later date. He described that the maximum height would be based on the elevation of Chamonix Lane. The applicant proposes to provide more information for the next meeting with PEC. The applicant has requested to separate the details from the main elements, such as height and setbacks and zoning, to provide some entitlements to the land. Additional Public Comment Neal Shubert — Moved here from Miami, where they gave up too much public land. Town might need that land some day in the future. You can't get that back in the future. Gillette — That is beyond the scope of this board, but I suggest you bring your concern to Town Council. Neal Shubert—Asked where the maximum building height will be measured. Gillette —Asked Fire Chief Novak about use of this site for the ambulance district. If we sell this, there will be no opportunity for using this land for the ambulance. Fire Chief, Mark Novak — Discussion of using this site for ambulance operations was prior to my arrival in Vail. We discussed options, and the paramedics decided that the best location for them is at Vail Health. There can be some efficiency for combining ambulance at the same location as the Fire Department. There are no immediate plans, and paramedics have no immediate use for this site. Stockmar —Are you comfortable that you will not need this site in the future? Once this site is sold and developed, we no longer have this option. Novak — Building on this hillside would be very expensive. I have never been involved in discussions on development of this site for the ambulance. Spence — Town Council has directed the staff to move forward with this application. We can only reasonably assume that they had discussions of its alternate use. Kjesbo —As I recall, the ambulance district determined that they do not want to build here. Spence — Staff believes that the first three items can stand on their own, and can be voted on today. He requested that the PEC provide specific questions, or information needed, so that we can pass this information to the applicant. Neubecker — The detail of architecture and site design will only be developed after the property is sold to a developer. The future buyer is looking for some assurance on what they are buying and what they can build. But asking for detailed drawings at this time may not be possible. Spence — If the PEC is not comfortable with the current proposal, what additional information or plans are needed to make a decision, short of a full blown development plan? Gillette — Show the site with a cube representing height and setbacks, a 3D model that we can spin around, assuming we have topography. Lockman — I would like to know what a development on this lot could look like. Stockmar — I don't want to see a building looming on this site significantly taller than other buildings. Spence —Applicant is trying to put some entitlements on the site to provide some assurance to a future buyer of this site. Perez — Recommend continuing these items until we can have more details and information from George, including a complete presentation. Spence — W hat types of questions does the PEC have? Please articulate further. Perez- It would be helpful to have a complete presentation on the last three items. Gillette — Would like to hear more about the future use of the triangle piece of land, and discussions held by Council that this site is not needed. Stockmar — Leaning toward continuing these items until we have more information. Spence — What other questions do you have, so that we can prepare the applicant? Lockman — Looking for clarity on the relationship of the HOA to this property, and the expectations of the owners, since this master plan called for 100% deed restricted housing. Perez — Want to see the picture on the front of the jigsaw box before we put the pieces together Kurz — I would be ready to move forward on the first three items. I feel comfortable on these items, with the benefit of hindsight, they have been discussed over the past many years. I will defer to the rest of the board. A massing model would be a good idea. Neal Shubert — Encourage everyone to walk the property. There is a drainage line at the end of our property. Who is responsible to tie everything together from our side to this lot? Spence explained the snow storage areas for Chamonix Vail neighborhood. He described the required setbacks from property line. Lockman — Could they build a sidewalk down Lower Traverse Way? There was a general discussion about pedestrian access, and if a walkway could be installed along the northeast side of this site. There was concern that people will create their own path. Stockmar — My preference is that we continue these items. Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development 30 min. Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 20 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0033) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.4. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, 5 min. Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E, a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0032) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.5. A request for the review of an Amended Development Plan, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for amendments to the Chamonix Vail Community Development Plan, Parcel B and a northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0035) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.6. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 5 min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at located at 2310 and 2420 Chamonix Lane, Parcel B and a northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. land setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0034) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to table to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 15 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates presented, and explained that this is a cleanup of the Town Code. The Town Attorney has reviewed this proposed language. Redundant language is proposed for removal. Two ordinances are proposed, for code cleanup and for changes to language on retaining walls on steep slopes. This amendment is something that was recommended by the DRB. We are seeing smaller lots and steeper lots being developed. This forces more retaining walls. Perez — In Title 12, there was supposed to be a cross reference to the actual definitions, not just "all words and phrases not defined herein shall use their customary definitions". Gates - Are you asking that we refer to the Title 12 definitions for the Title 14 definitions we are removing? Perez — Yes Gates — The "customary definitions" language was recommended by the Town Attorney, but we will add in the references to Title 12. Public Comment — None Ludwig Kurz moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 45 Min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker introduced the proposal and its history starting with how the W UI code in its entirety was proposed to be added to the Town Code. The scope has since changed to provide specific regulations related to building materials and limits on landscaping design. In the long term, we plan to place this proposal under a single ordinance with building code revisions. The Fire Department has included our current landscaping pamphlet explaining how properties can be in compliance. Fire Chief Novak began to explain the changes to the code and their reasoning behind it. Wildfires are not a matter of "if" they will happen, but more a matter of "when". Gillette had a question about what will trigger these regulations. Does landscaping require a permit? Neubecker - Just adding landscaping does not require a permit. Novak - Landscaping compliance would only be triggered by developments or alterations that trigger these regulations and only for the portion of landscaping that is disturbed by construction. This is a resiliency and sustainability issue. Fires are getting worse and have a number of health and environmental impacts. Novak continued to elaborate on fire impacts. When homes burn, their runoff is considered hazardous and it contains a number of dangerous materials. There is no greater threat to Gore Creek than a catastrophic wildfire. Fires that are low intensity can improve wildlife habitat, but in our area with our forests, we are likely to only get high intensity fires that permanently alter the local habitat. There is also a public impact; fires can have a large impact on tourism. People left Aspen last year on their vacation because of smoke alone. If we lose a lot of homes, we may struggle to get the workforce back to rebuild quickly. All of Vail is in the wildland urban interface. The town's entire interior is exposed to potential wildfire. We have a different understanding today as to why homes burn than we did 10 years ago. The understanding now is that fires start with embers that can land up to a mile away. Because of our forests, we have infrequent, very intense fires. Clock is ticking on our "stand replacement" fire. Novak showed a map of fire risk severity around Vail. Gillette - When was the last fire here? Paul Cada -. Well over 100 years since the last major fire. As the Chief said, the clock is ticking on another fire. Insects and disease also increase our fire risk. He showed an infographic stating measures to keep Vail fire safe. He mentioned safe evacuation of citizens and monitoring nearby fires. Another key component is to reduce ignition materials present in urban areas. What causes buildings to ignite? This is a question key to understanding wildfire protection. Direct flame contact does cause fires but its rare, ember ignition is far more common. Embers can build up in the nooks of a house and burn it before any surrounding vegetation. Structure to structure conflagration is also an issue, but more of an issue in high urban areas; this is what the original fire code was written for. A house on fire can generate a greater amount of heat than the front of a forest fire. Cada then showed a video demonstrating how a house can catch fire from embers in the air. Stockmar asked a question about the Town's roof replacement program, whether people were taking advantage of it. Neubecker - Staff still receives a lot of expedited reroof applications. Cada - The Fire Department is proposing a suite of code changes to help improve Vail's fire preparedness. The code amendments are for new construction and for additions of over 500 square feet. Gillette asked about how this code change would work with additions, since the entire house will need to match the addition. Cada - In talking with the DRB, they felt confident that applicants would be able to find comparable materials to what is already present on a structure to meet compliance both with the fire code changes and with architectural unity. Gillette asked about someone doing a complete facade replacement, would they be required to meet the code? Cada - No, but that they often meet the code anyway. Gillette - Why you wouldn't require this anyway on facade replacements? Cada - This was done for community acceptance. Stockmar - Many people are already voluntarily complying Cada - These amendments are similar to other hazard regulations with the one exception that is the entire town is within this fire hazard. Adoption of this code would safeguard the current design standards. What is being proposed is already in line with current building trends in Vail. It may not be a 100% perfect solution, but it was important to find a good compromise without imposing too much on the community at once. Embers are a key factor for structure ignition. Cada showed some graphics to support this statement. Cada continued to explain where to find appropriate building materials. Stockmar — What is the reception from insurance companies? Cada - Insurance companies are paying attention to fire risk more and more. The Fire Department is also open to coordinating with local insurance companies. Cada - The allowed building materials include: 1 -hour fire resistant rated material, noncombustible materials, heavy timber or log wall construction, or identified ignition resistant materials. There is also a provision to allow combustible siding up to 33% of a wall and not within 5 feet of the ground level. This provision was discussed with the DRB to allow for more design choices. Most ember fires start at the base of a building. Cada showed some examples of homes in Vail that meet the proposed fire standards without being required to. Gillette asked a clarifying question to make sure standard treated wood complies with this code. Kjesbo - It does. Cada introduce the landscaping/defensible space regulations. These are non -prescriptive; this requires that an applicant submit their landscaping plan to the Fire Department staff for review, who will then give comments. This is done to maximize design choice for applicants. Gillette asked about manpower for these reviews. Novak - The Fire Department will be proposing in the upcoming budget to add another fire employee for reviewing. Cada - They would rely on Planning staff for landscaping inspections, which is already their responsibility, and the Fire Department would get involved with inspections as needed. Kjesbo — Have a concern about the Fire Department being given the power to design landscapes, since the result of this is that the Fire Department gets final say on landscaping. Gillette also expressed concern on this point. There are some scenarios where someone would need to plant trees for screening between neighbors, but Fire wouldn't allow them. Cada showed a picture of an example property that could still have side screening with trees. Gillette expressed skepticism pointing out some trees on the diagram that are within 15' of the structure. Cada - This is why the code is non -prescriptive so that Fire Department can make a staff determination about when its worth having a tree nearer to a residence. Gillette - This will still be not enough for some homes. Cada - This is where smart building construction comes into play. Don't build a bathroom window that is in view of a neighbor. Novak - We have a back and forth discussion with the DRB if that board has a problem with what the Fire Department is requiring. This will require both the Fire Department and DRB to become more familiar with each other's goals. A few years down the line and a lot of those issues will sort themselves out. Perez had a concern about the rate of turnaround for the DRB and Fire Department interplay. Novak - The current turnaround is 10 days and that is the department standard they want to keep. In speaking with the Board of Appeals, it was agreed that codifying required plan review turnarounds is a bad idea. Gillette - I would be comfortable if this didn't require that homes maintain their defensible space after gaining a permit. This is proposed to be a fineable offense if people add trees after the permit is issued. Novak - If this isn't a requirement, then some of these changes don't work. Novak also mentioned that this is not retroactive. Gillette - The proposed wording does not say that is not retroactive. It requires it for all developments. Novak - Higher up in the code it states that none of the changes are retroactive, including the line in question. Perez - The Commission is only getting the proposed amendments piecemeal and not every section the Commission is receiving has this statement about the regulations not being retroactive. Perez also requested that "the Town" be capitalized uniformly. Perez also had an issue with the use of the word "tenants" rather than "occupants" in regard to the Gross Floor Area definition. Gillette - Section 12-11-3A proposed language does require all landscaping changes to be reviewed by the Fire Department, including older buildings. Novak — We will would work with Planning to make the language more consistent and incorporate the language changes proposed by Commissioner Perez. Novak also stated that the intent is to not have the code changes be retroactive, so they will work to make that clearer for the section in question by Commissioner Gillette. Gillette - The intent should be to require applicants install landscaping in accordance to the Fire Department guidelines, but once they have approval and the knowledge from the Fire Department, it should be their choice to add landscaping and put their own home at risk. If the Department starts limiting landscaping, people will go ballistic in Vail. Stockmar - I understand where the Department is coming from and don't want my neighbor's choice to put my own home at risk. He also mentioned that it is important to get language and wording right. Gillette brought up the example that people don't have to keep their home up to building code after receiving a permit. Delete that wording and rely on Title 5. Kjesbo agreed on these points. He agreed that these changes will make the Town safer and that he appreciates the work, but worries that some changes might be taking things too far. Novak — We will come back with changes. Cada - The first owner may know the risks of adding extra landscaping that negates other fire mitigation measures, but future owners would not and may unknowingly live with the added risk. Cada also brought up Chamonix, asking if the developer there had added extra landscaping that was a risk, would they tell the future owners? Gillette said he agreed with this and that people will always want to change their landscaping. Neubecker - The point of these changes is to move the Town in the right direction, not to mitigate all risk. Cada - Asked if the Commission wanted language in Title 12 that encourages but does not require retroactive compliance, while in Title 14 having language requiring compliance for applications that trigger Fire Department review. Perez thanked the Department for coming back to the Commission with specific code language in context. It is helpful for the Commission. Novak asked for clarity on the changes asked for by the Commission. Stockmar stated that they need the minor changes that had previously mentioned and that it would likely be best to continue this to the next meeting. Stockmar I'm in general supportive of the goals of the Fire Department in these proposed changes, and that in the long-term future I wouldn't mind seeing some more prescriptive regulation. After taking the continuation vote, Kjesbo requested a final comment. All consented. Kjesbo wanted clarification that the reduction of evergreen foliage below a certain height be a recommendation for existing properties. Karen Perez moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. August 12, 2019 PEC Meeting Results Perez had some corrections on page 19 of 23. Under Perez's comments, "should would like" should be changed to "she would like", and add the word "and" after "smoking on site". Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with corrections. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3.2. August 26, 2019 PEC Meeting Results Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0040) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC19-0040 Staff Memo Vail Land Use Description Staff Memoradum Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E application 07292019 as amended by CommDev Staff.pdf Attachment A. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 Attachment B. Chamonix Vail Master Plan as Amended July 29 2019.pdf Attachment B. Chamonix Vail Master Plan as Amended, 07-29-2019 0) TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0040) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category. The purpose of the amendments is to facilitate development on the future Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E, a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. The purpose of this development is to generate revenue from the sale of the property to offset the nearly 4 million dollar Town of Vail subsidy provided for the development of the 32 Unit Chamonix Vail Townhome project. The majority of the amendments concern revisions to the premise in the Master Plan that all residential development within the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries be deed restricted. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category, to allow for non -deed restricted residential development. A standard criterion within the Vail Town Code for approval of most applications is compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. The Vail comprehensive plan is a compendium of plans that includes the Vail Land Use Plan, of which the Chamonix Master Plan is a component, in addition to other plans such as the Vail Village Master Plan and Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to name but a few. In order to move forward with the applications necessary to facilitate development on future Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E, including Minor Subdivision, Zoning District Boundary Amendment and Amendments to the Chamonix Vail Community Development Plan, the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category must first be amended. The proposed revisions to the Chamonix Master Plan are provided as a redline document as Attachment B. Changes are confined to pages 4 and 5 of the document. The Vail Land Use Plan contains a number of land use categories that are intended to indicate general types of land uses that should occur within the Town and are utilized as a planning tool to inform decision makers during planning processes. Categories include, but are not limited to LDR (Low Density Residential), LRMP (Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan), CC (Community Commercial) and VVMP (Vail Village Master Plan). The proposed changes to the CMP (Chamonix Master Plan Area) to allow residential uses consistent with the Housing (H) District is shown below with new text in bold: CMP Chamonix Master Plan Area Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employee housing, dwelling units permitted as conditional uses in the Housing (H) District, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as a fire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. III. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail acquired the 3.6 -acre "Chamonix Parcel" in October, 2002, for the purpose of constructing a fire station, employee housing and land banking. To achieve the Town's goals the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan in 2005. The Master Plan outlined development areas for a fire station, employee housing and open space. Town of Vail Page 2 In 2007, the Town of Vail was able to acquire the adjacent former Wendy's Site. It was determined the former Wendy's Site was a more optimal location, from an emergency services perspective, for a future West Vail Fire Station. Based upon the acquisition of the new property, the Town of Vail determined it could better utilize the two parcels if a new, comprehensive master plan process was completed. A Request for Proposals to hire a new consultant team was issued in September, 2007. The Team of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell & Co. were retained by the Town of Vail to develop a Chamonix Master Plan. On January 16, 2008 a "Kick -Off" meeting was held for the purpose of introducing the Chamonix Site Master Plan project to the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, which was selected by Town of Vail staff as well as citizens, consisted of representative from the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Housing Authority, the Vail Fire Department, Community Development, and two Citizens at Large. Duties of the Advisory Committee consisted of reviewing previous master planning efforts produced for the Chamonix site, engaging in discussions on new opportunities and changed conditions to be considered during the new master planning effort, and issuing recommendations to the consultant team on the parameters that would guide the process and the creation of alternative development scenarios. Ultimately, a final version of the Chamonix Vail Master Plan was adopted by ordinance by the Vail Town Council in 2009 along with a corresponding revision to the Town of Vail Land Use Map and Land Use category. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Town's Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal. These documents identity the policy goals of the community and should be weighed against the proposed Master Plan to determine if the Plan is helping to advance the community's priorities: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ACTION PLAN 2018-2020 Our Mission - Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural environment, providing our citizens and guests with exceptional services and an abundance of premier recreational, cultural and educational opportunities. Community - Engage our community in honoring social, recreational, cultural, and educational values that will guide sustainable strategies throughout our neighborhoods as the foundation of our town's continued success. Ensure that our citizens are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive in our community. • Housing as necessary infrastructure to our community Economy - Preserve our vibrant and diverse economy that keeps Vail at the forefront of our resort competitors. Town of Vail Page 3 • Update long range strategic plans to enhance competitiveness of the Town of Vail Experience - Deliver on the promise, "Vail. Like nothing on earth" that also supports 'Preserving our natural environment" • Excellent municipal services • Convenient, efficient, and safe parking and transportation venues Sustainability - Balance our economic, environmental, and social needs to deliver a sustainable community. • Strategic implementation of environmental programs • Excellent stewardship by monitoring and maintaining our natural environment • Climate action to achieve reduction of greenhouse gas emissions • Reduce the environmental impact of transportation • Explore and encourage sustainable building practices VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER 11— LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES.- The OLICIES:The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Town of Vail Page 4 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. VAIL HOUSING 2027 Goal: The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing homes as well as for homes that are newly constructed by both the Town of Vail and private sector developers. Vision: An Eye on the Future - We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and capitalizing on our unique position as North America's premier international mountain resort community in order to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives. Town of Vail Page 5 Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community -driven purpose and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for the 21 st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant challenge. Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community - We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail Policy Statement: Resident Housing as Infrastructure - We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail, a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. V. CRITERIA Amendments to the Chamonix Master Plan and related Land Use Category require a public hearing review process as outlined in Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code. The role of the Planning and Environmental Commission is to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Town Council on amendments to the Plan. Amendments to the Chamonix Master Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, will need to be adopted by the passage of a resolution by the Vail Town Council. Amendments, or the adoption of new elements to the Comprehensive Plan must address the following review criteria: Amendments to a Master Plan The adoption of an amendment or update to a master plan needs to be in concert with the Town of Vail's Comprehensive Plan. The adopted master plan shall support, strengthen, and further the development objectives of the town. To ensure consistency with these objectives, the following factors for consideration are applied. 1) How conditions have changed since the original plan was adopted; Conditions have changed substantially since the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan more than a decade ago. In the time period since the adoption of the plan the following actions have taken place: The West Vail Fire Station has been fully completed Town of Vail Page 6 • The Chamonix Vail Townhomes Approved Development Plan has been approved • The development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes has been completed • The availability and affordability of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes for Vail residents has become the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community • The Vail Town Council has since adopted the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan and adopted a goal of acquiring 1,000 new deed -restrictions by the year 2027 2) How is the original Plan in error? The plan is in error as it does not accurately acknowledge or fully recognize the permitted and conditional uses prescribed by the recommended zone district designation of Housing (H) District. The plan correctly recommends rezoning Parcel B to the Housing (H) District yet fails to acknowledge that free market dwelling units are allowed in the District when developed for the sole purpose of subsidizing the deed - restricted homes on the property. The Town provided a nearly $4M subsidy in the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes. Parcel D (Future Parcel E) was set aside on the recorded plat for future residential development. A portion, if not all, of that future residential development was intended to be free market dwelling units. 3) How the addition, deletion, or change to the plan are in concert with the master plan in general. The proposed amendment continues to achieve the intended outcome of the plan. As intended, the site was identified for deed -restricted homes for Vail residents. As such, and as recommended within the plan, the site was to be rezoned to the Housing (H) District. The Housing (H) District allows free market dwellings to be developed within the District. During the course of the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes, Parcel D was identified as an area too costly to reasonably construct deed -restricted homes. To that end, Parcel D was set aside on the Final Plat for Chamonix Vail Community as a future site for residential development. The Vail Town Council, acting on behalf of the owner of the property, has instructed the Town staff to submit the applications necessary to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, and, in doing so, ensure at least one additional deed -restricted home is constructed on the site. By intention, proceeds from the sale are intended to be used to offset the $4M financial subsidy provided by the Vail taxpayers to develop the Chamonix Vail Townhomes and to further advance the Town's adopted housing goals. Following are several ways in which the Plan update is in concert with the master plan, and the Town's comprehensive plan: Land Use • Adoption of this Plan helps to ensure that this advisory land use document is updated and current. Town of Vail Page 7 • The proposed additional growth will be in an existing developed area. Housing The Plan helps to advance the Town's goal of acquiring 1,000 additional resident housing deed restrictions by the year 2027. The Plan helps the Town to provide housing to keep pace with the demands for a variety of housing types, and to upgrade the Town's supply of employee housing. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No environmental impacts are existing or foreseen. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category, and setting forth details in regard thereto. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 B. Proposed Amendments to the Chamonix Master Plan Town of Vail Page 8 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager From: George Ruther, Housing Director, representing the Vail Town Council Date: July 29, 2019 Re: Chamonix Vail Development Parcel — Chamonix Master Plan Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Amendment to Approved Development Plan Applications (PEC19-0032 to PEC19-0036 and PEC19-0040). I. PURPOSE The Vail Town Council has instructed the Town staff to submit the necessary development applications to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. The expressed purpose of the sale is to encourage infill residential development, generate revenue from the sale of the property, and to support the creation of one additional deed -restricted home on the Chamonix Vail Parcel. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the Town's development applications for a: 1) An amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category; 2) Minor subdivision; 3) Zone district boundary district; 4) Conditional use permit; 5) Variance; and 6) An amendment to the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood Approved Development Plan. Each of the applications is intended to finalize the creation of the development parcel at 2420 Chamonix Lane. The first step in finalizing the creation of this development parcel began at the time the Chamonix Vail Community Plat was recorded. According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." Additional steps are underway to prepare the parcel for development as originally contemplated with the recording of the Plat. II. REQUEST The Housing Department of the Town of Vail, acting on the direction of the property owner, the Town of Vail, represented by the Vail Town Council, is requesting approval of six development applications. The six applications include the following: 1. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment: The Chamonix Master Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on January 6, 2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009. The master plan area is the entire former Hud -Worth property, including the West Vail Fire Station (Parcel A and Parcel B). According to the adopted Plan, the charge made by the Vail Town Council was to "optimize the site" with the ultimate goal of balancing density with neighborhood impact, traffic, parking, aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that addresses the need for affordable housing in the community. The purpose of the master plan amendment is to update certain references within the plan to facilitate the intended residential development on Future Parcel E. An amendment to the Chamonix land Use Category is also necessary to allow for non -deed restricted residential development. This amendment is shown below with new text in bold: CMP Chamonix Master Plan Area Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employee housing, dwelling units permitted as conditional uses in the Housing (H) District, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as afire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. 2. Minor Subdivision: The Vail Town Code defines a "minor subdivision" as any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. In September of 2017, the Town of Vail, serving as the Declarant, created Lots 1 through 32 of the Chamonix Vail Community Parcel C of the Chamonix Vail Community, and remaining Parcel D for future development. As Parcel D is not a legal stand-alone lot as it was created through a Townhome Plat, a further subdivision process is necessary. At this time, the Town of Vail seeks to amend both the size and configuration of Parcel A and Parcel D through a change in the common property line location, as depicted on the attached map. No new unplatted property is being subdivided. Instead, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to Parcel D thereby amending both the size and configurations of the two parcels, respectively. The purpose of this minor subdivision is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The new legal description for the minor subdivision shall be: Final Plat Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, state of Colorado The applicant's response to the criteria for a minor subdivision is set forth in Section III of this memorandum. 3. Zone District Boundary Amendment: According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, Parcel D is zoned Housing (H) District and Parcel A is zoned General Use (GU) District. Upon approval of the minor subdivision application, that portion of Parcel A which shall become a part of Parcel D, will need to be rezoned from the General Use (GU) District. The Town of Vail is requesting approval to rezone a portion of Parcel A to the Housing (H) District, consistent with the remaining portion of future Parcel E. The purpose of this zone district boundary request is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The applicant's response to the criteria for a zone district boundary amendment is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 4. Conditional Use Permit: Dwelling units, which are not employee housing units, are allowed within the Housing (H) District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. In this instance, the criteria established for granting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for non -deed -restricted dwelling units are listed in Section 12-61-3 of the Vail Town Code. A response to the criteria is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 5. Variance: Chapter 12-21 of the Vail Town Code prescribes regulations for building within hazard areas in the Town of Vail. Further, Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, indicates "no structure shall be built on a slope of 40% or greater, except in the single-family or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. Residential structures allowed in those two districts include single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings. The purpose of this variance approval is to allow for the construction of a multiple family dwelling on a portion of a development site with slopes 40% or greater. The applicant's response to the criteria for a variance approval is set forth in Section III of this memorandum, below. 6. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: An Approved Development Plan was adopted for Lots 1 through 32, Parcel C, and Parcel D. The new Chamonix Vail Townhomes were constructed and completed consistent with the Approved Development Plan. Parcel D, remains vacant at this time and available for future development as noted on the recorded final plat. It 3 was the property owner's intent to exclude Parcel D from the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood development. The Town of Vail requests approval of an amendment to the Approved Development Plan. The Amended Approved Development Plan is intended to be in two phases; one for the existing Chamonix Townhome Development with minor modifications and a second for development on future Parcel E, The Development Plan for future Parcel E shall include the following development standards: • Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses: Those uses listed in Sections 12-61-2 through 4, respectively, as prescribed by the Vail Town Code. • Setbacks: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-5 of the Vail Town Code, as further depicted on the Amended Approved Development Plan. • Site Coverage: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-6 of the Vail Town Code. • Landscaping and Site Development: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-7 of the Vail Town Code. • Parking and Loading: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-8 of the Vail Town Code. • Lot Area and Site Dimensions: as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as depicted on the approved development plan • Building Height: The allowable building height shall not exceed 40 feet (40') for a flat or mansard roof. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 44 feet (44'). A maximum building elevation related to Chamonix Road consistent with the Chamonix Master Plan will also be included. • Density Control Provisions for Parcel E: a) Number of dwelling units —a total of up to four dwelling units within a single structure on the combined area of Parcel E. At least one of the dwelling units shall be a deed - restricted EHU. b) Total gross residential floor area (GRFA) — Not more than 7,200 square feet of GRFA total. The one deed -restricted EHU shall be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in size. The first 1,200 square of GRFA shall be excluded from any GRFA calculation. C) GRFA Calculation - For the purposes of determining compliance with the density control provisions, GRFA shall be calculated pursuant to Section 12-15-3 of the Vail Town Code. III. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS; RESPONSE TO REVIEW CRITERIA A. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment The Chamonix Master Plan does not prescribe criteria for the review of a proposed amendment to the plan. That said, however, the same review criteria are used in the preparation of the amendment to the master plan as have been relied upon by the Town's Planning & Environmental Commission and supported by the Community Development Department for the past three decades. Those criteria include: :l 1. How have conditions changed since the original adoption of the Master Plan? Conditions have changed substantially since the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan more than a decade ago. In the time period since the adoption of the plan the following actions have taken place: • The West Vail Fire Station has been fully completed • The Chamonix Vail Townhomes Approved Development Plan has been approved • The development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes has been completed • The availability and affordability of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes for Vail residents has become the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community • The Vail Town Council has since adopted the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan and adopted a goal of acquiring 1,000 new deed -restrictions by the year 2027 2. How does the proposed amendment to the Chamonix Master Plan achieve the desired outcomes intended of the plan? The proposed amendment continues to achieve the intended outcome of the plan. As intended, the site was identified for deed -restricted homes for Vail residents. As such, and as recommended within the plan, the site was to be rezoned to the Housing (H) District. The Housing (H) District allows free market dwellings to be developed within the District. During the course of the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes, Parcel D was identified as an area too costly to reasonably construct deed -restricted homes. To that end, Parcel D was set aside on the Final Plat for Chamonix Vail Community as a future site for residential development. The Vail Town Council, acting on behalf of the owner of the property, has instructed the Town staff to submit the applications necessary to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, and, in doing so, ensure at least one additional deed -restricted home is constructed on the site. By intention, proceeds from the sale are intended to be used to offset the $4M financial subsidy provided by the Vail taxpayer to develop the Chamonix Vail Townhomes and to further advance the Town's adopted housing goal. 3. How is the Chamonix Master Plan in error? The plan is in error as it does not accurately acknowledge or fully recognize the permitted and conditional uses prescribed by the recommended zone district designation of Housing (H) District. The plan correctly recommends rezoning Parcel B to the Housing (H) District yet fails to acknowledge that free market dwelling units are allowed in the District when developed for the sole purpose of subsidizing the deed -restricted homes on the property. The Town provide a nearly $4M subsidy in the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes. Parcel D was set aside on the recorded plat for future residential development. A portion, if not all, of that future residential development was intended to be free market dwelling units. Minor Subdivision: Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the preliminary plan, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed minor subdivision is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies as outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance, the applicant relied upon the following planning -related documents for guidance: • The Vail Land Use Plan • The Chamonix Vail Community Plat • The Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan • The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Examples of consistency and compatibility include: • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements • 2011 Chamonix Master Plan Amendment • The Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations Vail Land Use Plan — In 2009, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2, Series Of 2009: A Resolution Adopting The Chamonix Master Plan, To Facilitate The Development Of Employee Housing And A Fire Station On The "Chamonix Parcel" And "Wendy's Parcel" And To Amend The Vail Land Use Plan, Pursuant To Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan To Designate The Chamonix Master Plan Area Located At 2399 North Frontage Road And 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A And B, Re -Subdivision Of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 2, the West Vail Fire Station has been completed on Parcel A as intended. Further, the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood has also been completed as intended. At this time, only Parcel D is yet to be developed as intended. This minor subdivision application is the final phase to be completed. The small, triangular portion of Parcel A that is to be added to Parcel D by this subdivision facilitates development on future Parcel E without having any negative impacts on the operation and continued use of the fire station on Parcel A. There is no minimum lot size requirement in the General Use district, regardless, Future Parcel A remains more than 1.2 acres in size. This subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Vail Land Use Plan recommendations. • Chamonix Vail Community Plat — According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." This minor subdivision, through the inclusion of a small portion of Parcel A, does not violate, or in anyway frustrate, the intended purpose of Parcel D, as set forth in the approved Community Plat. In fact, in many ways, it only improves and further enhances the original development objectives for Parcel D. • Town of Vail Zoning Regulations — The Zoning Regulations have been enacted for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. The proposed minor subdivision advances the general purpose of the Zoning Regulations and helps to sustain the Town's character as a resort community of the highest quality. This will be further achieved as any future development application shall be required to demonstrate continued compliance with the adopted Zoning Regulations. • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements - In July of 2018, the Vail Town Council adopted its first housing policy statements. According to Resolution No. 30, Series of 2018, "through the adoption of housing policy statements, it is the Vail Town Council's intent to articulate the approaches the Town will take to realize its vision, achieves its housing goal, and address the most critical issue — housing —facing the Vail community." This minor subdivision is consistent with the following housing policy statements adopted by the Vail Town Council: o #1 Housing IS infrastructure o #2 Housing Partners o #3 Private Sector Importance o #5 Breakdown Barriers o #6 Funding Creates Deed -Restrictions o #10 Funding is Policy 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and The proposed subdivision complies with the standards prescribed within the Vail Town Code, including Title 12, "Zoning Regulations". The proposed minor subdivision is simply a 7 resubdivision of already subdivided and developable land that is already lawfully platted with associated development rights. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed minor subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among surrounding land uses consistent with Vail's development objectives. Historically, the Town of Vail has articulated its development objectives as the specific purposes contained within Section 12-1-2 (B) of the Vail Town Code. To that end, in part, the proposed minor subdivision provides for adequate light, air, sanitation and drainage given the resulting infill development; promotes safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation given its adjacency to Chamonix Lane; conserves and maintains established community qualities and economic values as the property is already developable and any resulting development must comply with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards; and does not create excessive population densities or overcrowding. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and The proposed minor subdivision will result in positive impacts on the surrounding area. The two properties are platted and zoned for development. If it were not for the exponential cost of developing on Parcel D, it would have been developed with residential uses and structures in conjunction with the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. As a result of the plat covenant and the Approved Development Plan requirements, future development on the site is limited to low density residential structures designed in compliance with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards. In sum, the structure built on the site will be used similarly to other structures existing in the residential neighborhood and be designed in a similar context, consistent with the adopted design guidelines and standards. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and The proposed minor subdivision is located and designed in such a manner that avoids creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities. The area surrounding the proposed minor subdivision is fully developed and properly served by existing public utilities and services. Given the infill development nature of this application, a "leapfrog" pattern of development is avoided. Infill development is a proven means of adding density within an existing neighborhood with no adverse impacts on community character within the area. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and The utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area and avoid future land disruption to otherwise upgrade undersized lines. As a result of the proposed minor subdivision, a maximum of four dwellings units could be constructed on the combined area of future Parcel E. Utility providers have previously confirmed the adequacy of the size of the lines and services to accommodate the likely increase in population resulting from a total of four new dwelling units. In fact, an existing water line was looped in the neighborhood during the infrastructure installation at Chamonix Vail to better accommodate development in the area. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed minor subdivision promotes the growth of an orderly, viable community and serves the best interest of the community as a whole. Town of Vail taxpayer monies were used to acquire the Chamonix Vail property. Parcel D is a developable portion of the site. As a result of this minor subdivision approval, the Town intends to sell the vacant land for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Net proceeds from the sale of future Parcel E will help to reduce the taxpayer subsidy provided in the original purchase, and subsequent development, of the property. Further, this minor subdivision creates an opportunity for infill development. Infill development is often a preferred means of growth of a community as it takes advantage of existing services and infrastructure without expanding the community boundaries to accommodate growth. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed minor subdivision results in beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including vegetation, undeveloped hillsides, wildlife and other desirable natural features. Given the infill nature of future Parcel E, and the land disturbance already existing from the installation of public utilities and the construction of Chamonix Lane, one additional built structure within an already existing built -out neighborhood is not detrimental to the natural environment. In fact, it could be argued that accommodating infill development has less of a negative impact on the natural environment than greenfield development achieved through expansion of the Town's municipal boundary. An alternative to infill development would be to accommodate growth and expansion on undeveloped areas surrounding the boundaries of the community. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. C. Zone District Boundary Amendment: Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outline in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the amendment increases the amount of land area in the Town of Vail designated for deed -restricted housing, yet maintains the availability of town -owned facilities most often associated with development in the General Use District. Arguably, this amendment is not only compatible with the development objectives of the Town, but it advances the Town's development objectives by increasing opportunities for desirable outcomes that may not exist otherwise. This amendment furthers the Town's housing goals and advances the Vail Town Council critical actions, as identified in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018-2020. (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and The zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site as well as the existing and potential surrounding land uses. As proposed, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to future Parcel E in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. This amendment ensures that zone district designation of future Parcel E is consistent with existing Parcel D. Parcel D, as zoned, provides for both free-market and resident -occupied, deed -restricted residential uses. Since the development potential of future Parcel E is based upon approval of an Approved Development Plan, and not a proportional percentage of the lot area, this additional land area does not proportionally impact the size of any future structure, or increase the intensity of the future uses on site. The additional square feet of land area to be zoned into the Housing District does not negatively impact existing and potential surrounding land uses. (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses which are consistent the Town's development objectives. For instance, when this portion of Parcel A is rezoned to the Housing District, it increases the constructability of development on future Parcel E, given the recta -linear configuration of the site. Moreover, the change in zoning increases the marketability of the property, thereby increasing the economic incentive granted by the Zoning Regulations to support resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes within the community. In many ways, this application achieves and supports exactly what is intended by the Town's development objectives. 10 (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning. The requested change from the General Use District to the Housing District allows the entire site to be zoned consistent with the Town's development objectives and further supports the Town's goal of acquiring 1,000 new resident -occupied, deed - restrictions by the year 2027. According to the 2018 Housing Policy Statements adopted by the Vail Town Council, "Housing IS Infrastructure" and infrastructure is the support system of a whole community. Further, it is unclear how a claim of "spot zoning" could apply to this application, and therefore, irrelevant and does not pertain. (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The zone district amendment has no negative impacts on the natural environment. As presently zoned, both the General Use District and the Housing District grant certain development rights. One would be hard pressed to characterize future Parcel E as critical habitat or ecologically sensitive for natural environment purposes. This application supports infill development. (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the Housing District. According to Section 12-61-1, in part, the purpose of the District is, "intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing..." As proposed and covenanted, future development on the site is limited to three free-market homes and one, resident -occupied, deed -restricted home. This use is clearly consistent with the purpose provisions of the Housing District. (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and The zone district amendment is supported by demonstrated changes in conditions which are no longer appropriate or relevant. The entire Chamonix Property was purchased by the Town for an intended purpose. Parcel A was acquired by the Town of Vail to construct a fire station in West Vail. To do so, Parcel A was platted and zoned to the General Use District. As a result, the fire station has been completed as planned. The 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is no longer needed to accomplish the development objective and may not have been included in the original plat had it been known at the time. 11 Further, Parcel B and Parcel C were created to support the development of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes. The new Chamonix Vail Neighborhood was completed on the combined area of Parcels. Parcel D was subsequently created to accommodate future residential development. The inclusion of a portion of Parcel A, through a minor subdivision, supports that purpose. Changing the zoning to the Housing District achieves the Town's development objective for future development on Parcel E without negatively impacting the current or future use of Parcel A. (8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed rezoning. D. Conditional Use Permit: Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Free-market (non -deed -restricted) homes are an allowed use in the Housing District provided their sole purpose is to subsidize resident -occupied, deed -restricted housing on the property. Upon approval of the five development applications, the Town of Vail intends to sell Parcel E, with covenants, for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Arguably, the relationship and impacts of free-market development are no different than deed -restricted development. The only difference is who is permitted to occupy the home. Residential uses are permitted on the site today. This application does not change the uses on the site. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, etc. Again, residential development is permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon traffic. Future development on the site shall be designed to comply with the Town's adopted standards for development. Again, residential development is already permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. For 12 example, residents of deed -restricted homes do not have any greater or lesser impact on removal of snow than residents of free-market homes. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use permit will not have a negative effect upon the character of the area, including scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding area. As contemplated, and prescribed by the development standards proposed for Parcel E, the new residential structure will be similar in scale and bulk to similar residential structures in the immediate vicinity. For example, by covenant and development approval, the new residences will be a maximum of 7,200 sq. ft., respectively with a maximum building height of 44 feet. According to Eagle County Assessor's information, existing multiple -family homes in the immediate vary greatly in size, with the most adjacent homes being approximately 7,200 square in size and 44 feet in height or less. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and A total of four dwelling units are proposed on future Parcel E. Three of the dwelling units are non -deed -restricted and one is deed -restricted. The Vail Town Council intends to sell future Parcel E upon approval of the minor subdivision, zone district amendment, conditional use permit, and amendment to the approved development plan. Net proceeds from the sale will be used to reimburse the Town's housing fund for a portion of the nearly $4M subsidy provided to facilitate the development of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and A total of three, non -deed restricted dwelling units are proposed. Upon approval, 36 homes total will be provided within the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood; only three if which are not deed - restricted. As such, approximately 8% of the total number of dwelling units are free market. Furthermore, pursuant to the Approved Development Plan (PEC15-0019), "up to 40,000 square feet" of GRFA is allowed on Parcel B and Parcel C. A total of 7,200 square feet, or only 18%, of 13 free-market GRFA is proposed on future Parcel E. The Zoning Regulations would allow an additional 4,500 square feet, or 11.25%, of GRFA C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and The three non -deed -restricted dwelling units may only be constructed on future Parcel E, provided the one, deed -restricted dwelling unit is 1) either already completed and obtained a certificate of occupancy, or 2) is being constructed simultaneously with the non -deed -restricted units and obtained a certificate. Either way, the deed -restricted dwelling unit is provided in conjunction with the non -deed -restricted dwelling units. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. The three, non -deed -restricted dwelling units are compatible with the site and the buildings and uses on adjacent properties. In fact, in many ways, the proposed development enhances the transition of the site from larger -sized multiple family buildings to smaller -scaled residences to the west and north of the development site. Variance Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant's request is approval of a variance to construct a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU on future Parcel E. According to the Vail Town Code, structures can be built on slopes of 40% or greater without a variance. Multiple -family structures have been permitted on slopes of 40% or greater elsewhere in Town, subject to prescribed development standards (i.e. density control, setbacks, building height, site coverage, off-street parking, etc.) without any negative impacts to existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, it is reasonable to infer that the same will be true on the future Parcel E housing site. Examples of which include Middle Creek Village Apartments, Solar Vail Apartments and the Chalets at Mountain Plaza. These were all completed without resulting in negative impacts to the immediate or surrounding areas. A slope stability report was completed by the consulting geotechnical engineers with Ceasare, Inc. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the feasibility of developing a multiple -family structure on the site given the existing slope conditions and the presence of a two-tiered retaining wall immediately adjacent to the south. In analyzing the site and completing the report, the consulting engineers relied upon actual "as -built" conditions to make their findings. The conclusions of the report found that the site was suitable for development provided any future structure has a setback of 25' from the southerly property. Additional analysis is recommended, though not required, by the engineers at the time of design review application submittal. As a result, the future multiple -family residential structure use of the site may undergo additional review 14 to further verify compatibility with the existing uses in the vicinity in the immediate vicinity of the site. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The variance request is to allow a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU to be constructed on a site in the Housing zone district with slopes 40% or greater. The degree of relief requested from this provision of the Vail Town Code is the minimum amount needed to achieve uniformity of treatment among sites in the district without a grant of special privilege. The presence of the 40% or greater slope condition is the result of several factors. First, the natural topography of the area results in some areas having slopes 40% or greater. Second, the construction of Chamonix Lane and the sluffing of road grade materials down the slope exacerbate the steepness of slope conditions of the site. This road sluffing condition is prevalent outside the platted Chamonix Lane right-of-way. The inconvenient truth of the Town's housing shortage is that greater attention was granted to free- market development in the early days of Vail than was granted to addressing the need for deed - restricted housing. As a result, the more easily developed sites, ones which had no physical hardships or faced any practical difficulties, thereby requiring no variances to develop, were quickly gobbled up and already built upon. In the end, many of the properties now zoned to the Housing district are what is leftover and in the least ideal locations from a development site suitability standpoint. These properties, for example, are negatively impacted by practical difficulties such as challenging access, marginal soils, steep slopes, floodplains and wetlands, geologic hazards, and other similar difficulties. To verify this point one simply needs to look to other Housing district sites to appreciate the resulting difficulties first hand. Timber Ridge Village Apartments were faced with steep slopes and high severity rockfall conditions which caused the need for variances to construct 15 -foot tall retaining walls. Similarly, the Lionsridge Apartments too were faced with naturally occurring steep slopes, road sluffing conditions, and moderate severity rockfall conditions that created the need for substantial rockfall mitigation and retaining over 20 -feet in height. The Solar Vail Apartments were impacted by greater than 40% slope conditions requiring the need for variances. Further, the Middle Creek Village Apartments were constrained by both steep slopes and the Middle Creek drainage floodplain, and, the Arosa Duplex was negatively impacted by a debris flow hazard limiting its development potential to something less than otherwise permitted by zoning. The Chamonix Vail Parcel E falls into the same category of practical difficulties as similar Housing zoned developments. To ensure compatibility of future development on the site a companion development plan application has been provided. The companion plan ensures the appropriateness of development with many of the development standards consistent with the Housing zone district. As a result, a multiple -family structure is permitted with the grant of a variance on slopes 40% or greater; any future development on Parcel E will achieve compatibility, consistency and uniformity with the development objectives of the Town Code without a grant of special privilege. 15 None of the practical difficulties or physical hardships described upon are the cause of any actions taken by the applicant. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no negative impact or effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This portion of the Chamonix Vail Community has been intended for development since its original platting and, in fact, could have supported increased density and populations. Moreover, some community members have suggested that significantly more density should have been developed on the site, including within the area of future Parcel E. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The availability of affordable housing remains the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community. This issue has been at the forefront of community issues as far back as the adoption of the 1973 Vail Plan. At that time, the community identified three critical issues facing the future success of the community. They included: 1) Loading and delivery 2) Parking 3) Seasonal Housing It should not be inferred that little, or nothing, has been done to address the housing needs of the resort community. It is quite the opposite. A significant amount of action has taken place over the past 45 -plus years. Today, the Vail community has acquired an ownership interest in more than 815 deed -restricted homes. The reality, however, is that even with more than 875 deed -restricted homes; the demand for housing still far exceeds both the current and projected supply. Most recent figures provided by the 2018 Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solutions Report indicates there will be a shortfall of approximately 4,030 homes with the Eagle River Valley in the year 2020. While the approval of this application results in only one additional deed -restricted home, overall, it further supports the future creation of additional housing through the utilization of nearly one-half acre of already platted and otherwise developable land area in the Town of Vail. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. W. The proposed amendment to the approved development plan focuses on the development standards and land use regulations. Considerations such as architecture, character, scale, massing, etc. are intended to be addressed during the design review process by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. To that end, to ensure these considerations are addressed consistently, the Town's adopted design standards and guidelines shall apply. Please see the Amended Approved Development Plan (Phase 1 and 2) for all required information concerning the Development Plan. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. See Criteria A. above. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. See Criteria A. above. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. See Criteria A. above. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. See Section III A (A)(1) of this memorandum above. 17 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan Chamonix Master Plan 6 January 2009 Adopted by Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009 Amended July 29, 2019 Prepared For the Town of Vail by Formatted: Centered Formatted: Left 1 STAB CLAl1SIN ASSOCIATERmf +� Drexel, Barrell & Co, architects F-1 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan Acknowledgements The Chamonix Area Master Plan Amendment is the result of over a year of work on the part of many individuals. Without the effort of the Vail Town Council, the Chamonix Advisory Committee, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Vail Local Housing Authority, and Town of Vail Staff the Chamonix Area Master Plan would not have been completed. Vail Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Dick Cleveland, Mayor Bill Pierce, Chair Andy Daly, Mayor Pro -Tem Rollie Kjesbo, Co -Chair Kevin Foley Michael Kurz Mark Gordon Sarah Robinson- Pala dino Farrow Hitt Scoff Proper Kim Newbury Susie Tjossem Margaret Rogers David Viele Chamonix Advisory Committee Vail Local Housing Authority Bob Armour Mark Ristow, Chair Jack Bergey Sally Jackle Andy Daly Steve Lindstrom Rollie Kjesbo Ethan Moore Ethan Moore Kim Newbury Mark Risfow Margaret Rogers David Viele Town of Vail Staff Consultants Stan Zemler, Town Manager Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. George Rufher, Community Dev. Director Studio B Architects Mark Miller, Vail Fire Chief Drexel, Barrell & Co. Craig Davis, Vail Fire Department Economic & Planning Systems Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator Scott Hunn, Former Project Planner Table of Contents 1. Project Scope 1 2. Process 3 A. Overview B. Advisory Committee C. Town Council Hearing D. Refinement of Schemes E. Sustainability 3. Final Recommendations 6 A. Advisory Committee B. Final Town Council Approval 4. Preferred Option 7 5. Procedural Requirements 9 6. Non -Preferred Options 9 7. Recommended Actions 12 8. Appendix 12 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan 1. PROJECT SCOPE The proposed design schemes for the Chamonix Master Plan Area were directed by the stated goals and objectives developed early in the community participation process. The consultant team of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell & Co. identified a variety of opportunities and constraints from the unique physical characteristics of the Chamonix site. The inclusion of a fire station and student dormitory further complicated the layout and programmatic elements of the site design. The Master Plan Area is generally south facing and sloped and occupies a highly visible location off of the west Vail exit (Exif No. 173) from I- )��\\ 70. Highway commercial and strip mall commercial development characterizes the uses off of the frontage road and Chamonix Road, with residential neighborhoods characterizing the use patterns off of Chamonix Lane. The Chamonix Master Plan Area is located near fo bus stops on both the West Vail Red and Green Loop transit lines. Commercial and employment opportunities are located in the commercial areas within walking distance of the site. The Town Council identified eleven development goals fo direct the master planning process. These goals were: • The site is fo be used for development of a fire station and empleyee housing consistent with the provisions of the Housing IHI District. • Housing for sfudenf fire department employees should be considered in the design of the fire station. • An ambulance substation could be an ancillary use on the site. •—Energy-efficient and sustainable design and construction techniques are Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan important. Certification by a particular program (LEED, Green Globes) is to be investigated, although not mandatory. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.53" inn I9 r.+ of he g E48'08I..r.8d 1;h.. I.J h-8 .488d r8S+r'.-.+8d feF SGI8 r.l...,.-..-. hGUSiar. With , „+ o fWG RGI +hFee h-edr,,,,m , ni Housing within the site shall be consistent with the permitted and conditional uses of the Housing IHI District. • The site should be optimized to provide the greatest amount of employee housing. To achieve this optimization, it is likely a financial subsidy will be required. • Re -zoning the site to Housing (H) District is preferred to allow flexibility in design and development and recommended by this plan.. • Additional traffic onto Chamonix Lane should be limited. • One-story of development along Chamonix Lane is acceptable. • All financing and phasing options will be considered, including the development of free-market homes, as allowed as conditional uses in the Housing IHI District, to offset the cost of construction. • I.I8W .-.8E48S+r'91.G*. . d +81; She ld 198 :.J...J Rd SUr R o ghbGFhGGd fe ether d,ith.n. I.A/ost\/441. €mcSiRg PPdPr�(4R The charge made by the Vail Town Council to "optimize the site" required that the planning concepts developed by the design team be evaluated in the context of adjacent uses. The ultimate goal was to provide a plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area that balanced the concepts of density, neighborhood impact, and traffic and parking concerns with aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that would address the community need for additional affordable housing in a contextually appropriate way. The target group for the Chamonix development was families. The target group income was determined to fall within 60-120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) range for Eagle County, with a possible inclusion of incomes up to 140% of AMI. In current dollars, this equated to a household income range of $47,000 to $94,000, with a possible excursion to $110,000. 2 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan An important component fo the site plan for the Chamonix Master Plan Area was the inclusion of a new fire station. Members of the Town Council recommended the fire station be segregated from the residential use of the Chamonix development for safety and noise reasons. Dedicated access for emergency equipment was requested, as was the incorporation of a community room for public gathering. A student dormitory, fo help alleviate the cramped conditions experienced by fire department recruits, was also requested. Finally, provisions for possible Ambulance District participation were fo be considered. 2. PROCESS A. History of Chamonix Master Plan Area The Town of Vail acquired the 3.6 -acre "Chamonix Parcel" in October, 2002, for the purpose of constructing a fire station, employee housing and land banking. To achieve the Town's goals the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan in 2005. The Master Plan outlined development areas for a fire station, employee housing and open space. In 2007, the Town of Vail was able fo acquire the adjacent former Wendy's Site. If was determined the former Wendy's Site was a more optimal location, from an emergency services perspective, for a future West Vail Fire Station. Based upon the acquisition of the new property, the Town of Vail determined if could better utilize fhe fwo parcels if a new, comprehensive master plan process was completed. A Request for Proposals fo hire a new consultant team was issued in September, 2007. The Team of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., Studio B Architects, and Drexel, Barrell & Co. were retained by the Town of Vail fo develop this new Chamonix Master Plan. B. Overview During a period of six months, the consulting team developed three schemes. The three schemes, titled Neighborhood Block, Neighborhood Cluster, and Village Neighborhood, explored varying densities and infernal character. Development of the three schemes benefited from informal and formal meetings with stakeholders and Town staff and from responses fo a survey distributed fo potential residents. Members of the consultant team also attended the Fire Chief Magazine "Station Sfyle Design Conference" in Phoenix fo broaden their understanding of currenf fire station design trends. Revisions fo the three schemes were periodically presented fo 3 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan the Advisory Committee for additional input and direction, and these refinements were subsequently presented fo the Town Council. Information from the Town department heads was considered in the site planning and design guidelines for the development of the employee housing and fire station at the Chamonix Master Plan Area. Information from other sources was balanced with the input gained from the Focus Groups. C. Advisory Committee On 16 January 2008 a "Kick -Off' meeting was held for the purpose of introducing the Chamonix Site Master Plan project fo the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, which was selected by Town of Vail staff as well as citizens, consisted of representative from the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Housing Aufhorify, the Vail Fire Department, Community Development, and two Citizens at Large. Duties of the Advisory Committee consisted of reviewing previous master planning efforts produced for the Chamonix site, engaging in discussions on new opportunities and changed conditions fo be considered during the new master planning effort, and issuing recommendations fo the consultant team on the parameters that would guide the process and the creation of alternative development scenarios. D. Town Council Hearing 4 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan The Town Council received an update on the work to date on 20 May 2008. The consultant team presented three schemes which ranged in total unit counts from 50 to 70 units. Optimizing the density of the site, the Council's charge at the outset of the master planning effort, was not construed to mean that the maximum number of units possible for the site should be sought. Rather, the consultant team sought a balance between number of units and resident population, with special consideration given to the qualify of the experience of living in and around the development. The Town Council instructed the design team to seek a middle path on density, considering infernal views and character of the surrounding neighborhoods. There was also a discussion of unit sizes, with the Council inclining toward larger units of two, there and possibly four bedrooms. E. Refinement of Schemes Based on the Council's comments and the request accommodate more family- orienfed units, the schemes were refined to concentrate on the creation of two and three bedroom units. Units ranged in size from 768 sq. ff for 1 -bedroom units, 1,292 sq. ff. for 2 -bedroom flats, 1,333 sq. ff. for 2 bedroom loffs, 1,460 sq. ff. for 3 -bedroom units to 1,632 sq. ff. for 3 bedroom duplex units. Because family housing was the stated focus of the development, one bedroom units were incorporated sparingly and generally used as "infill." There was attention to the possibility of providing 4 - bedroom units. While these were not included in the final unit mix, some units were designed with expansion potential, where a fourth bedroom could be finished later. F. Sustainability Various construction methods and site design techniques were discussed for the site which conformed to "green" practices. Both traditional on-site building methods as well as the use of offsite, factory built construction were considered for the ultimate construction of the housing structures. Based on discussions with the Advisory Committee, offsite, factory built construction became the preferred method due to the energy efficiencies as well as lower construction costs inherent with this construction method. Site design standards which focused on solar orientation, limits to site disturbance, brown -field development, open space preservation, access to transit, and on-site storm wafer retention were integrated info the three schemes as providing the basis for certifiably 5 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan sustainable construction practices. Certification of the project using a third -party certification program, such as the United States Green Building Council LEED certification process, was considered and was included in the cost estimates. The Advisory Committee determined that third - party certification would create potential advantages in the future marketing of the development, would leverage the green techniques used in the development to encourage or require other private developments to seek the same standards, and foster community pride. As a part of the third party certification process, on-site storm wafer detention, which would minimize impacts from impermeable surfaces at the Chamonix site to the municipal storm wafer system, was incorporated in to the design. 3. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. Advisory Committee On 17 July 2008, the final Advisory Committee meeting was held. The consultants presented the final versions of the three schemes and, after discussing the schemes, the Advisory Committee members in attendance voted on their preferred scheme for recommendation to the Town Council. The "Village Neighborhood" scheme, which was the most dense scheme that featured an underground parking garage, received six of the fen votes cast, the "Neighborhood Block" plan received four of the fen votes cast, and the "Neighborhood Cluster" received none of the votes cast. While the Village Neighborhood became the elected preference of the Advisory Committee, a subsequent discussion after the vote fended to suggest that there was significant concern regarding the additional cost and maintenance of the sub -grade parking garage. This concern was noted and included in the report to Town Council. B. Final Council Approval On 5 August 2008, a final presentation of the three schemes was made to the Town Council. Following an update on the Advisory Committee recommendations the council voted six to one for the Neighborhood Block scheme as the preferred option. Reasons given for the preference for the Neighborhood Block scheme ranged from the middle density character of the scheme, the inclusion of open space, the mix of units, and the flexibility of unit layout. Council members voiced support for the third party certification of the project as well as for factory, off-site construction. 6 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan 4. PREFERRED OPTION Neighborhood Block IArm A. Overview The Neighborhood Block scheme contains 58 units. The following unit mix was proposed: • No 1 -bedroom units; • twenty, 2 -bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2 bedroom lofts; Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan • eight, 3 -bedroom units; and • fourteen, 3 bedroom duplexes. This unit mix provided for 81,696 sq. ff. of housing with a density of 16 dwelling units per acre. A main access street, which gained access fo the site from Chamonix Road, bisected the site, with 3 -bedroom duplexes on the north side and multi -family units on the south side. An alley offers secondary access fo the multi -family units. The main street passed through the development fo fhe fire station site. While access fo the fire station was intended fo be limited, this configuration allowed for dual points of access fo the site, thus alleviating infernal traffic congestion. The landscape plan located potential community gathering spots throughout the scheme. Semi -private, stepped courtyards were located between the duplex units. Turf areas were limited fo large open spaces on the east and west ends of the development. The open space on the east end could be utilized for such uses as a dog park. Landscaping on the east end was kept away from the street fo preserve sightlines at the Chamonix Road/Chamonix Lane intersection. The open space on the west end would provide a viewing area info fhe fire station operations. For safety reasons, the viewing area was segregated from fhe fire station by a series of low, landscaped walls. The landscape palette utilized native frees and shrubs. Aspens were situated along the northern edge of the site and gradually "spilled" through the spaces created by the structures. In these stands of aspen, a native undersfory of grasses (Thurber's fescue, wheafgrass and blue -wild rye) was punctuated by forbs such as columbine, common lupine, golden banner, and strawberry. Along the southern portion of the site, where retention ponds were intended fo hold and treat storm wafer runoff, more water -oriented plants took over. Blue spruce was planted densely fo act as a screen fo the commercial uses fo the south and I-70 beyond. Shrub thickets of willow and birch filled in among the spruce. B. Fire Station C The fire station design shown in the Neighborhood Block scheme was the consensus alternative of Fire District staff and the Advisory Committee. The building foundation itself provided Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan retention of the steep slopes fo the north of the site, and thereby offered the most cosf- effecfive site design. 5. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Following extensive analysis of both the Chamonix Parcel and the Wendy's Site, staff determined the Official Land Use Map for the Town of Vail should be amended fo reflect the new designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area. This effort was completed n 2009. The designation of Chamonix Master Plan Area is harmonious with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood and achieves the development goals listed above. Both properties were rezoned fo reflect the development goals of the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The 3.6 -acre parcel commonly known as the Chamonix Parcel was rezoned from Two -Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) zone district fo Housing (H) zone district (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2008)and the 1.25 -acre former Wendy's Site was rezoned from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) zone district fo General Use (GU) zone district (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) on November 18, 2008. Ultimately, the fire station itself will require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in the General Use (GU) zone district as if is a conditional use rather than a permitted use in all zone districts. The master plan is intended fo be used as the development guide for the Chamonix Master Plan Area. The plan identifies the location for the fire station and the employee housing. The plan locates the highest density employee housing fo the south of the lower density employee housing. This layout ensures the greatest compatibility with the adjacent neighbors. Locating the fire station on the southern edge of the property also locates this more commercial type use farthest from residential development. 6. NON -PREFERRED OPTIONS A. Neighborhood Cluster Overview The Neighborhood Cluster scheme contained 50 units. Unit mix consisted of: 9 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan • four, 1 -bedroom units; • eight, 2 -bedroom flats; • sixteen, 2 -bedroom loffs; • fourteen, 3 -bedroom units; and • eight, 3 -bedroom duplexes. !i a M �00_ - The unit mix provided for 68,232 sq. ff. of housing with a density of 14 dwelling units per acre. A main access street, which gained access fo the site from Chamonix Road, passed through the site fo fhe fire station, again offering dual points of access. Access fo fhe fire station was limited for safety reasons. Mulfi-family units were situated off the north and south side of the access road. Drives extend fo the north off the main street fo duplex units. The landscape plan, similar fo the Neighborhood Block scheme, located community 10 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan gathering spots throughout the design. These community spots utilized terraced courtyards which were located off of infernal pedestrian circulation routes. As with the Neighborhood Block scheme, turf areas were provided on the east and west ends of the development, connected by a pedestrian frail. The turf area on the eastern portion could be utilized for an amenity such as a dog park, while the western turf area offered a segregated vantage point of the fire station operations. B. Village Neighborhood Overview The Village Neighborhood scheme contained 70 units. This scheme offered a combination of lower density duplex and multifamily units and a multi -story, multi- family structure. Unit mix consisted of: • nine, 1 bedroom units; • fhirfy-fwo, 2 bedroom flats; Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan • no 2 bedroom loffs; • sixteen, 3 bedrooms; and • fen, 3 bedroom duplexes. The unit mix provided for 87,936 sq. ff. of housing with a density of 19 dwelling units per acre, the highest density of the three schemes. The main access fo the site is via Chamonix Road. The entry road offered a traditional neighborhood lane, with duplex units fo the north and multi -family units fo the south. The lane terminated in the plaza located in the center courtyard of the multi -story, multi -family structure. The plaza was of a more urban character, with paving that allowed for pedestrian and occasional vehicular access as needed. A raised landscaped platform in the center offered a green gathering spot for residents. A parking structure was located below the plaza and provided parking for the residents of the multi -storied structure. The parking structure was accessed via a dedicated entrance off of the frontage road. As in the previous schemes, open space was provided on the eastern and western ends of the site, with similar possibilities for programming. 7. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A. Amend the Vail Land Use Plan. • Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation on December 22, 2008 • Vail Town Council adoption, on first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, scheduled for January 6, 2009 B. Rezone the "Chamonix Parcel" fo Housing (H) District. • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008) C. Rezone fhe "Wendy's Site" fo General Use (GU) District. • Occurred on November 18, 2008 (Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2007) D. Complete the final Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis by Economic & Planning Systems. • Draft complete on December 9, 2008 E. Complete a site and unit mix specific market study fo determine demand for the development, based on the pre -determined area median income target. • Initiated Phase II of contract with Economic & Planning Systems on December 16, 2008. Anticipated completion by February 15, 2009. 12 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan 8. APPENDIX A. Neighborhood Block Site Plan B. Chamonix Affordable Housing Development Cost and Revenue Analysis C. Vicinity Map Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan Appendix A 14 o z I I 1 � ISI i 14 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan Appendix B CHAMONIX AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS Prepared for: Town of Vail Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. December 9. 2008 15 Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................. Project Background .......... Scope of EPS Analysis........ II. Comparative Analysis Comparative Projects III. Feasibility Analysis PAGE 2 2 2 .............................................. 3 .............................................. 3 FA ProjectCosts....................................................................................................... 9 Project Revenues............................................................................................. 10 CostScenerios.................................................................................................. 12 IV. Findings...................................................................................................... 18 Cost Considerations........................................................................................ 18 UnitSubsidy....................................................................................................... 19 Buyer Lending Issues........................................................................................ 19 Additional Considerations.............................................................................. 20 76 LIST OF TABLES Vail Land Use Plan Attachment F: Chamonix Master Plan PAGE Table 1 Total Project Costs.......................................................................... 10 Table 2 Affordability Calculation. Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels 13 Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build & Standard Subsidy ............................ 14 Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular & Standard Subsidy ............................... 15 Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction . 16 Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction... 17 Table 8 Summary of Findings....................................................................... 18 77 Chamonix Master Plan I. INTRODUCTION The proposed Chamonix affordable housing project site is located on Chamonix Lane in close proximity fo the West Vail interchange. The Town purchased the site several years ago for the purpose of constructing housing. The former Wendy's site was purchased more recently for the purpose of constructing a fire station. Collectively, the two sites total 5.5 acres and are slated for housing and the fire station. Surrounding land uses in the area consist of highway oriented commercial development. Further north from the highway along Chamonix Lane, the land use pattern is composed of both single family and multi family residential uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Town of Vail recently retained Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. fo complete a site plan and cost estimation for an affordable housing project on the Chamonix site. As part of the work, Clauson identified three possible development programs with varying levels of density and building types. Clauson's work also estimated costs associated with construction, engineering, and landscaping of the scenarios for both stick built and modular construction. In addition, the report considered additional costs and fees associated with achieving LEED certification. The analysis was completed in the fall of 2008. From this work, the Town Council identified scheme 1, Neighborhood Block, as the favored development program. Included in this program are 58 total units with an overall density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The project cost estimated by Stan Clauson ranges from $16.7 fo $23.3 million depending upon the building construction method. As part of the evaluation of the project, the Town seeks fo develop a full understanding of any and all costs in addition fo land costs that may occur throughout the course of the project's implementation. SCOPE OF EPS ANALYSIS Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the Town of Vail fo conduct a feasibility study of the project, building on the work done by Stan Clauson Associates. First, EPS researched comparable projects within Summit County, the Roaring Fork Valley, and Eagle County fo identify prominent factors influencing the overall economics of a number of projects. Second, EPS modeled potential Chamonix project revenue based on targeted AMI levels. Project revenue was then compared fo estimated costs, including additional cost factors identified by EPS, fo determine the AMI requirements needed fo provide sufficient revenue fo make the project feasible. 2 Chamonix Master Plan II. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS EPS compiled comparative cost information for seven projects in the Roaring Fork Valley, Summit County, and Eagle County based on interviews with project representatives. This section discusses the individual projects and then summarizes the relevant findings. COMPARATIVE PROJECTS SUMMIT COUNTY Vic's Landing The Vic's Landing project is located in the Town of Breckenridge across from the Breckenridge Golf Course on Tiger Road. The project was spurred by an annexation request by the developer, Tom Silengo, and the corresponding request for wafer taps. As part of the annexation, the Town's inclusionary housing requirement was triggered. The Town required the developer to construct 24 affordable units in exchange for entitlements for 12 market rate units. Town contribution to the project viabilifywas limited to fee waivers and the entitlement of the 12 market units. The project is evenly split between one- and fwo-bedroom units with target AMI levels of 80 and 100 percent. The 24 -unit project consists of six four-plexes. One -bedroom units are priced at $185,000 and target income levels at 80 percent of AMI. Two-bedroom units target both 80 and 100 percent of AMI and are priced at $229,500 and $285,000 per unit. Among other standards, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation to three percent or the increase in local AMI, dependant upon whichever measure is higher. In addition, resales of the units are subject to income testing on the part of the buyer with a 10 percent income level tolerance. Closings began in April of 2008. The one -bedroom units in the project are sold out. Approximately half of the two bedroom units are sold. If should be noted that the two bedroom units were completed later and thus have been impacted to a greater degree by current credit restrictions. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) approval of the project was not originally sought, although an effort on the part of the developer is currently being made to receive approval. The approval is expected to broaden market demand as buyer financing will become more available. Chamonix Master Plan Valley Brook Valley Brook is a project in the final planning stages also located in the Town of Breckenridge on northeast corner of Airport Road and Valley Brook Street. The proposed project is being developed on a fee basis by Mercy Housing Colorado as a result of a Town issued RFQ in November 2007. As currently proposed, the project includes 42 units targeting income levels at 80 and 100 percent of AMI. The project is composed of fwo- and three-bedroom units in two-story fownhomes. Approximately 52 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 80 percent or less and 48 percent of the units are targeted for AMI of 100 percent or less. Units at 80 percent range in price from $133,000 fo $160,000 per unit. Prices at 100 percent range from $200,000 fo $250,000. Similar fo Vic's Landing, the deed restriction limits annual appreciation fo three percent or the percent by which AMI increases. Hard costs are currently estimated at $184 per square foot with total a total square foot cost of $230 per square foot for hard and soft costs as well as site work. The cost excludes land and off-site costs. Construction prices have increased approximately 10 percent from the time of that the project was initially bid. However, both the developer and representatives from the Town expect fo benefit from a downward renegotiation of costs. The developer is charging a one-time fee equivalent fo approximately four percent of total costs, although a 10 percent fee is Typically used by the developer. The project is being developed with a high level of subsidy with contributions from town, state, and federal sources. In total, if is estimated that grant funding will account for $4.7 million of the project's budget, or approximately 38 percent of total costs, which does not include costs of land (which was contributed fo the project by the Town). The subsidy figure does include fee waivers by the Town. In addition, the Town may also contribute an additional subsidy in grant funding. Af this time, the subsidy per unit is estimated at $117,000 per unit. Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Place The Town of Snowmass has recently completed the first homes in Rodeo Place, a 27 -unit affordable housing development located near the Rodeo Grounds. The project is located within the Town of Snowmass, approximately half the distance between the base area and Highway 82, and is highly visible fo traffic along Brush Creek Drive. The project consists of 20 single family homes, two duplexes, and one triplex. Phase I accounts for 15 of the 27 total units. The Town finished and closed six units in the fall of Chamonix Master Plan 2008 and plans fo have the balance of Phase I completed by the spring of 2009. The homes are modular. Town staff noted that there have been problems coordinating the site work and the manufacturer resulting in project delays and cost increases. Nevertheless, the Town staff is pleased with the overall process and the qualify of the architectural design. The Town did not established AMI targets for the prospective residents but relied on surveys of interested households fo derive home prices. Approximately 50 fo 60 households with of leasf one full-time employee based in Snowmass expressed interest in the project. Most of these households have maintained interest in the project since the surveys were first distributed in mid 2007. The deed restriction, which limits appreciation fo three percent per year (among other terms), has caused some prospective purchasers fo drop out of the process. However, because housing options are limited (particularly in Snowmass), most households have maintained their participation throughout the development process and the pool of buyers has remained sufficiently large fo provide adequate demand. Based on the response fo surveys, homes were designed fo fall info a price range spanning from $300,000 fo $550,000 per unit (which translates fo an AMI of approximately 140 fo more than 250 percent). The small single family homes and duplexes are priced of $300,000, for 1,400 square feet of finished living area plus 700 square feet of basement floor area ($214 per square foot, finished). Medium sized single family homes are priced from $425,000 fo $450,000 for 1,800 square feet, plus 900 square feet of basement area ($229 per finished square foot). The largest are priced of $550,000 for 2,150 square feet plus 950 of basement floor area ($256 per square foot, finished). Basements were not an optional feature, as the Town mandated that they be included in each home. The requirement not only ensures adequate storage, but also creates additional bedroom area fo be used for sublets and/or roommates, increasing the number of employees that can be housed locally. The construction costs range from $210 fo $225 per square foot and covers only vertical costs. The Town absorbed costs for all on-site infrastructure improvements as well as soft costs related fo the site engineering and architectural design. While staff did not have specific costs for these services, they estimate a 25 percent increase for these costs resulting in a total cost of $262 fo $281 per square foot. The Town had acquired the land previously and contributed the cost of the land as a form of subsidy. Subsidies range from $33,000 fo $80,000 per unit based on an average construction cost of $271 per square foot. The smaller units generate $300,000 of revenue while construction costs total $380,000 (1,400 * 271), resulting in a net subsidy of $80,000. The medium sized units required a subsidy of $50,000 and the largest units were subsidized by $33,000. The average among all three unif types is $54,000. 5 Chamonix Master Plan Burlingame Ranch Burlingame Ranch is a 21.5 acre affordable housing development in the Town of Aspen located off Highway 82 fo the north of the Bar/X Ranch. The project is entirely dedicated fo affordable housing and planned fo be developed over three phases and will include a total of 236 units. To date, 91 units have been constructed on the site. Income targets for the project range widely, although the majority of the units accommodate income levels that range from approximately 80 fo 140 percent of AMI. (Nofe that the Aspen Housing Office sets its own median income and corresponding AMI levels. The targets shown here are approximate.) The first phase of development includes 15 one bedroom units, 30 fwo bedroom units, 39 three bedroom units, and 7 single-family lofs. Most of the units are fownhomes. In addition fo the identified income limits, residents are also required fo earn a minimum of 75 percent of their yearly income within Pitkin County. The units are deed restricted fo three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. All 91 units included in the first phase have been sold. An extensive audit of Phase I costs in Burlingame Ranch was completed as a result of a brochure that was published in 2005 misstating the total cost of the project fo the public. The average sales price per unit (including lofs) for the project was approximately $230,000. Hard costs for the project averaged $170 per square foot with an average total cost of $202 per square foot of hard and soft costs (which exclude land, off-site, and mitigation costs). Including land and all other costs, such an off-site infrastructure, mitigation, and community benefits, the total project cost $236 per square foot. The project's audit indicates a per unit subsidy of $331,567, or approximately 59 percent of the project's costs. This contrasts with an anticipated subsidy of $184,455 per unit. The increase is largely attributable fo programmatic changes made by Council as well as shifting AMI targets fo lower levels. The project costs increased by $11.7 million, resulting in relatively high per unit subsidies. Iron Bridge Iron Bridge is an affordable housing development located in Garfield Counfy between Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The affordable component of the project is part of the larger 300 home development by Iron Bridge Homes, LLC. The inclusion of affordable units in the development was a requirement of Garfield County's inclusionary housing ordinance triggered by the developer's request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) density increase. A total of 30 deed restricted affordable single family units were required. County representatives expect 24 fo be completed on site and another six fo be addressed via fees -in -lieu. Chamonix Master Plan The affordable units are all comprised of 3 -bedroom 2 -bath units with an average size of 1,430 square feet. The units are targeted fo families earning 80 percent or less of AMI and working in Garfield County. The units are priced at $230,000 as a result of calculation of AMI based on a 6 -person family. Garfield County has since amended their ordinance fo limif the amount of people able fo be included in the AMI calculation and maintain lower price points. The units are deed restricted fo three percent annual appreciation or the percent by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases (among of her requirements). Sales within the affordable component have been slow, as the developer has closed on only four units However, the balance of the project is under contract and the remaining 20 units are awaiting their certificate of occupancy which has been delayed as a result of the involvement of Lehman Brothers in the construction loan. As a result, the completion of the units and release has been delayed several months. No County or other public subsidy was used in the construction of the units. Developer representatives report that their approach was fo sell the units at the cost of vertical construction and shift costs related fo land, infrastructure, and soft costs fo the market rate portion of the development. Vertical construction costs are estimated range from $160 fo $175 per square foot. The project is not currently FHA approved, although the developer and County are investigating the measures necessary fo become approved. EAGLE COUNTY Stratton Flats Stratton Flafs is a 47 -acre housing development located in the Town of Gypsum south of Hwy 6 on the northwest side of the Eagle County Regional Airport. The developer for the project is Merifage Development Group. Af build -out the 339 unit project will include 152 single family homes, 118 fownhomes, and 69 condominiums of which 226 will include deed restrictions. Af this time, a total of seven units have been permitted on the 47.3 acre site. The affordable units target income levels at 140 percent of AMI and are evenly divided between Town of Gypsum and Eagle Counfy deed restrictions. The Gypsum restriction limits income fo 140 percent of AMI and requires that buyers earn 85 percent of their income in Eagle County. The Eagle County deed restriction limits income fo 140 percent of AMI and includes a cap on annual appreciation based on the increase fo the local AMI. Units with the less restrictive Town of Gypsum deed restriction are priced at approximately $320,000 fo $350,000 for fownhomes and between $180,000 and $245,000 for condominiums. Units with the Eagle County restriction are priced at $350,000 for single family units, $300,000 fo $330,000 units for fownhomes, and between $180,000 and Chamonix Master Plan $245,000 for condominiums. Market rate units range from $400,000 to $430,000 for single- family homes and between $340,000 and $380,000 for fownhomes. To date, the developer has written 8 contracts for units in the project. The developer reported that approximately 80 people had pursued loans without success. As a result, the developer has pursued and recently received FHA approval, which allows for 97 percent Loan-fo- Value buyer financing. The project was completed using modular construction at a total cost of $200 per square foot. From the time of initially ordering the modular units through the current point in the construction process, the developer reported a cost increase of eight percent. Within the Gypsum deed restricted units, there is a per unit subsidy of approximately $23,000 which was provided in the form of fee waivers by the Town. Eagle County units required higher subsidies of approximately $23,000 of waived Town of Gypsum fees plus $40,000 per unit which was provided through a $4.5 million equity investment in the project by Eagle County in the form of a subordinated position. Eagle Ranch Village Eagle Ranch Village is a land development project by East-West Partners located in the Town of Eagle off Grand Avenue on Sylvan Lake Road. The project includes approximately 60 units which were constructed as part of the Town's inclusionary housing ordinance and were constructed approximately five to six years ago. The affordable units within the project are housed in four-plexes within the Sylvan Square development, which is part of a larger development that includes single-family houses, entitled lots, and additional multifamily housing. The affordable units sold for approximately $300,000 per unit as compared to market rate units within the project that sold for approximately $350,000 per unit. Hard costs within the project were approximately $180 per square foot for vertical construction only. Soft costs accounted for approximately 20 percent of hard costs resulting in a total cost to approximately $216 per foot. The developer of the affordable units reported that no profit margin was received on the affordable units. No income restrictions exist on the units. The deed restriction requires that residents must live and work in Eagle County and limits annual appreciation to three percent or CPI, although this provision is waived if the seller cannot find a buyer. The Eagle County Housing Authority has the first right of purchase from the owner. The affordable units were provided a development subsidy through a land donation by East-West Partners as well as a 0.2 percent transfer fee on the market rate units. The fee is allocated by a community housing committee to individual units. Including land and the transfer fee, the total subsidy in Sylvan Square was approximately $50,000 per unit. 8 Chamonix Master Plan III. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS EPS conducted a financial analysis fo provide a full indication of the costs the Town of Vail will incur in the development of the Chamonix site. EPS analyzed potential revenues from varying AMI levels and projected the per unit subsidies needed fo finance the project. Project Costs Town Council has indicated a preference for Scheme 1 of the Stan Clausen proposals which includes 36 fwo-bedroom and 22 three-bedroom units for a total of 58 units. EPS compiled the cost information provided by the consultant with line items for a developer's fee and contingency consideration. With these factors added fo the original estimate, the total construction cost for the "stick built" Option A is $29,523,540. The cost for the modular built Option B is $21,844,116, as shown on the following page in Table 1. 9 Chamonix Master Plan Table 1 Total Project Costs Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Sources & Uses Neighborhood Block Option A Option B Total Square Feet 81,696 81,696 Program 1 Bedroom 0 0 2 Bedroom 36 36 3 Bedroom 22 22 Subtotal 58 58 Costs Cost Factor Engineering $848,328 $848,328 Engineering Services 7.0% 59,383 59,383 Construction 23,283,360 16,747,680 Landscaping 748,552 748,552 LEED Certification 135,420 135,420 Subtotal $25,075,043 $18,539,363 Cost per Square Foot $307 $227 Contingency Engineering Contingency 15.0% $127,249 $127,249 Construction Contingency 10.0% 2,328,336 1,674,768 Landscaping Contingency 15.0% 112,283 112,283 Subtotal $2,567,868 $1,914,300 Fees LEED Certification Fee 0.5% 125,375 92,697 Developer Fee 7.0% $1,755,253 $1,297,755 Subtotal $1,880,628 $1,390,452 Total Costs $29,523,540 $21,844,116 r EPS additions to Stan Clauson estimate Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates Project Revenues EPS estimated appropriate sales prices based upon an Average Median Income (AMI) of $75,000 for a household of three in Eagle County, as shown in Table 2. Target home prices range from approximately $228,000 at 80 percent of AMI to $407,300 at 140 percent AMI. a c CL Q) .x O U 0 O co N N r o O C, L C M 00 O o (D r d V 12 o (0 (0 CO LO LO M O O (f) LO (f) l!7 N N� N (O } M (O 1D O O ER E9 OM Oa d �O � M EFT EFT E E Qf)000 E9 5 E E N R a o a>� o� N N in LO 'IT o N o 00 00 V (� co 0 (O r CY) CY) V-) E9 M 1 - EFT ER 2 Z M M OM 00 00 (0 (f) co O c6 O V V N O Q1 0 1� M EFT ER M M E ON O o V V O 1— N O c6 O O O �� L O of 0) a e» r 0 r rn 000 000 ER ER O � ss m coo 0 N M M � � N LO 0 01 La C�00 O O N— N O O V V 00 6'� Z (� r I- � va 0co ER ER Q!) a00o La N N o (0 (0 0) N O a O m O 00 00 I� (0 � — La � ' La N � � M N r co 61Y 60 V, OLa ER ER N N 60 60 O O 00 � O O O lLO (00 m M M N V) ER M co } 0 a O EFT EFT N N 60 60 N N r o O C, L C M 00 O o (D r d V � V L L d d Q N R _ O d �O � O d � 2 O E E 5 E E N R a o a>� o E> m `o ..E�a>w E0o f6 m a '� Q Q E • m m N N> N .. a y 0 0 0 0Q O 2 y 0 0 0 0 Jm 2 2 Z Q H Chamonix Master Plan COST SCENERIOS The total amount of revenue available fo the project was determined by the number of units within the project dedicated fo each income level. Tofal income was then compared fo the total project cost fo determine the net difference. This amount provides the basis of the estimate of subsidy per unit for the proposed Chamonix project in three scenarios. For this analysis, the costs are based on the San Clauson report. Stick built construction is assumed fo cost $285 per square foot and modular is assumed fo cost $205 per square foot. The field research indicates that these may be overly conservative of this time and that a lower cosf figure may be reasonable. In the analysis that follows, the original cost figures have been maintained. If is recommended that the feasibility analysis be rerun with lower figures after the Town has had the opportunity fo review them. The first scenario examined an optimal level of affordabilifywifh half of the units targeting households of 80 percent of AMI and half of 100 percent AMI. The second scenario determines the price points necessary fo reach a per unit subsidy consistent with the comparative projects in the region. The third scenario examines the per unit prices needed for the project fo break even. In the fables that follow, Scenario A refers fo stick built construction costs and Scenario B is based on modular costs. 12 Chamonix Master Plan OPTIMAL AMI TARGET An optimal AMI level of 80 and 100 percent of AMI was used in this analysis. At these levels a stick built project requires a per unit subsidy of approximately $251,000 per unit, as shown in Table 3. Modular construction at these incomes requires a per unit subsidy of $118,000. Table 3 Subsidy at Optimal AMI Levels Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis 3 Bedroom Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources 80%AMI - 3 Bdrm. Option A Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 0% 0 80%AMI -2 Bdrm. 50% 4,111,200 4,111,200 90%AMI -2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 5,185,800 5,185,800 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 120% AM I - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 130% AM I - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 140% AM I - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 Subtotal 100% 9,297,000 9,297,000 3 Bedroom 80%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 2,512,400 2,512,400 90%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 3,169,100 3,169,100 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 120%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 130%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 140%AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 0 Subtotal 100% 5,681,500 5,681,500 Total Revenue $14,978,500 $14,978,500 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($178.04) ($84.04) Unit ($250,777) ($118,373) Total ($14,545,040) ($6,865,616) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates 73 Chamonix Master Plan TYPICAL SUBSIDY Based on the research of regional projects, a representative per unit subsidy for stick built construction in a project with only affordable units is approximately $120,000 per unit. A typical subsidy for modular construction is approximately $30,000 per unit. To reach a typical stick built subsidy, the program required units fo be evenly split between 130 and 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 4. Af these income levels, the project could be feasible with a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Table 4 AMI Levels for Stick Build & Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis 3 Bedroom Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources 0% Option A 2 Bedroom %of Total 0 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 7,331,400 Subtotal 50% 14,128,200 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4,480,300 Subtotal 50% 8,633,900 Total Revenue $22,762,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($82.76) Unit ($116,577) Total ($6,761,440) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates 1 "m- Ilh—I—,I�t. ­—oaav,eea-i-III Ezgecw1, *islaeverv�x 14 Chamonix Master Plan Modular construction affords a greater flexibility in the program required fo reach typical subsidies. When 50 percent of units are priced for 120 percent AMI and the remaining units are divided between 110 and 130 percent AMI, a per unit subsidy of approximately $33,000 is needed, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 AMI Levels for Modular & Standard Subsidy Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis 3 Bedroom Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources 0 Option B 2Bedroom 0 %of Total 0% 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 30% 3,496,900 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,258,600 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 20% 2,643,200 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 Subtotal 100% $12,398,700 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 30% 2,225,300 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 3,824,700 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 20% 1,510,400 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 Subtotal 100% $7,560,400 Total Revenue $19,959,100 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($23.07) Unit ($32,500) Total ($1,885,016) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates 15 Chamonix Master Plan MINIMAL SUBSIDY The following two tables test hypothetical scenarios in which the Town pays the least amount of subsidy. For stick built construction, the project requires a subsidy of $102,000 per units even if 100 percent of the units are sold at 140 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Stick Built Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis 3 Bedroom Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources of Option A 2 Bedroom % of Total 0 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. of 0 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 100% 14,662,800 Subtotal 0% 14,662,800 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. of 0 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 100% 8,960,600 Subtotal 0% 8,960,600 Total Revenue $23,623,400 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet ($72.22) Unit ($101,727) Total ($5,900,140) Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates F a1 --1—n, site F-1,11, a -I -a IEx Ii I—,xs{ —n- 16 Chamonix Master Plan The Town could hypothetically achieve feasibility with minimal subsides using modular construction costs, as shown in Table 7. The sales modular constructed units are cost neutral when 40 percent and 50 percent of units are targeted for incomes of 130 and 140 percent of AMI, respectively. Af these sales prices a small number of units can be devoted fo 120 percent of AMI. Table 7 Incomes Required to Cover Costs of Modular Construction Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis 3 Bedroom Neighborhood Block Revenue Sources 0% Option B 2 Bedroom % of Total 0 80% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 10% 1,390,800 130% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 50% 6,796,800 140% AMI - 2 Bdrm. 40% 5,702,200 Subtotal 60% $13,889,800 3 Bedroom 80% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 90% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 100% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 110% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 0% 0 120% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 10% 695,400 130% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 50% 4,153,600 140% AMI - 3 Bdrm. 40% 3,665,700 Subtotal 60% $8,514,700 Total Revenue $22,404,500 Project Profit/Loss Square Feet $6.86 Unit $9,662 Total $560,384 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Stan Clauson Associates FII - ­­ 1a111.1.F—Ie ­­.­-AMS-1e� 1� ,I--. 17 Chamonix Master Plan IV. FINDINGS The following analysis summarizes the most prominent issues encountered in the development of the selected affordable housing projects. Issues are organized by cost considerations, subsidy levels, and buyer lending. Cost Considerations Construction costs for the projects under consideration in this report ranged from $200 to $281 per square foot, as shown on the following page in Table 8, which summarizes the costs, revenues, and subsidies for the projects evaluated. The construction cost data shown in the fable is exclusive of land, off site mitigation, and other considerations. The figures generally include hard costs, soft costs, and on-site infrastructure. Results indicate frequent instances of construction costs around $200 to $230 per square foot. Developers experienced cost escalations ranging from 8 to 20 percent from the time an initial bid was received to construction. However, project representatives repeatedly indicated that downward pressure in materials costs has fallen 20 percent from 2007 to 2008. Contractors in the planning stages are fending to renegotiate prices in light of weakening demand for construction materials worldwide. Table 8 Summary of Findings Chamonix Affordable Housing Costs and Revenue Analysis Construction Cost Project Planned Built Target AMI Cost Subsidy s Escalation Price Range Summit County Vic's Landing 24 24 80% to 100% — fee waivers --- $185,000-$285,000 Mercy Housing 42 — 80% &100% $230 $117,000 10% $133,000-$250,000 Roaring Fork Valley Rodeo Ground 27 9 140%-250% $281 $300,000 - $550,000 Burlingame Ranch 91 91 80% to 140% z $202 $332,000 12% avg. $230,000 Iron Bridge 24 24 80% a $2024 $0 — $230,000 Eagle County Stratton Flats 226 7 140% $200 $23,000-$40,000 8% $180,000-$350,000 Eagle Ranch Village 60 60 live/work in Cty. $216 ° $50,000 20% $300,000 Modular units z Majority of units in this range, AMI level based on survey 3 Based on six Person household °Total cost derived by allocating 20% of hard costs to soft costs s Burlingame Ranch and Mercy Housing figure do not include waived fees Source: Economic & Planning Systems 18 Chamonix Master Plan Unit Subsidy Subsidies fake many forms in affordable housing development. The research shows a clustering of per unit subsidies in the $20,000 to $50,000 range as well as a cluster on the upper end that spans from $120,000 to $330,000. In all cases, these subsidy levels are on fop of land costs. In each of the case studies provided, land was provided at no cost to the affordable units, which is a minimum threshold for pursuing an affordable housing project at this time. Generally, the projects requiring lower subsidies benefit from market rate units that defray the land, soft costs, developer fees, on-site infrastructure, and off-site mitigation. For example, Iron Bridge, Stratton Flats, Vic's Landing, and Eagle Ranch Village all received indirect subsidy through the ability of the developer to build market rate units on-site. In addition, the projects also received fee waivers to help offset the costs of affordable units. The $23,000 to $40,000 subsidy at Stratton Flats includes both fee waivers as well as the benefit of a $4.5 million equity contribution from Eagle County. The $50,000 per unit subsidy at Eagle Ranch Village includes both fee waivers proceeds from a RETA and the value of a land contribution from the master developer. Another way to reduce subsidies is to increase sales prices and target higher AMI levels. The Snowmass project reflects relatively unique approach as virtually all of the units are priced at the upper end of the affordable spectrum, reaching approximate AMI levels near (or above) 140 percent. The Town was able to reduce the subsidy to $54,000 per unit based on sales prices for some units that exceeded $500,000. The project with the lowest required subsidy, Stratton Flats, reflects a combination of benefits, including on-site market rate units, modest deed restriction terms, as well as higher AMI targets. In projects without supporting market rate units and conventional AMI targets that reach households earning as little as 80 percent of AMI, higher subsidies are required to cover project costs. The proposed Valley Brook project anticipates a per unit subsidy of approximately $117,000. Burlingame Ranch requires $332,000 per unit. Moving forward, the Town of Vail should recognize that land subsidy alone will be insufficient for the project unless construction costs drop and/or AMI targets are set high. The Town should carefully consider higher AMI levels and should set them only after completing additional market analysis, as identified below. Generally, the Town should anticipate committing additional levels of subsidy to the project based on the research of comparative projects. Buyer Lending Issues Project developers repeatedly indicated that underwriting standards for residential borrowers represent the greatest current risk to affordable housing development. Preliminary research shows 19 Chamonix Master Plan that mortgage terms require down payments of 10 to 15 percent. Many developers cited the need to secure Federal Housing Administration approval, thus providing 97 percent loan -to -value financing. Project representatives indicated that FHA approval was contingent upon review of the deed covenants and in the case of the modular development (Stratton Flats) approval of building plans, including the unit foundation. Construction loans appear to be less of an issue than individual homebuyer loans. Representatives from the Valley Brook project indicated a willing market for construction loans. In addition, downward pressure on construction costs has also eased restrictions to borrowing. Additional Considerations Based on discussions with developers with active affordable housing projects in the region, there are a number of critical issues that warrant consideration, in addition to the issues of costs, revenues, and feasibility. These include: Competitive Market Position - The Town should understand the market position of the site relative to other projects within the county. Prospective home purchasers have options and can be expected to evaluate several other opportunities before selecting a home at this location. Documenting the market context and determining the competitive advantages provided by this site will shed light on the profiles of buyers likely to purchase here. The analysis will enable the Town to price its units based on the market and improve receptivity among the segments) most likely to consider if. Product Alignment - Once the market position and price banding has been established, the Town should revisit the products designed for the site. Aligning the products with the buyer profiles is a critical step to creating a marketable project. If should be noted that most developers attempt to provide as broad a range of products as possible, thus generating interest from across the spectrum of prospective buyers. This approach is recommended for the Chamonix site as well; however, the Town should identify the most profitable and saleable product and ensure that the development program is concentrated around this unit type. • Market Depth by AMI Level - In addition to evaluating the market supply, as noted in the first two bullets, the Town should consider an analysis of market demand. Using recent survey data, the Town could understand the depth of potential demand for units by income level. The data can be cross -tabulated by a range of factors to better understand depth of demand by type of resident. • Financing Risk Mitigation - The current credit markets are substantially different from the recent past. Accordingly, developers must fake action to ensure that financing is as available under the most flexible terms possible for future buyers. At this time, developers are seeking FHA approval to achieve this. The Town should understand the requirements of FHA and ensure that if is addressed from the start of the project. 20 Appendix C Chamonix Master Plan Chamonix and Wendy's Parcels 2308 ALO,�} .3 •217/1, 9 4 IM 5. . zip �, 2z8s � ��• � >, e � � �. 028 248 i -8e ��$iu.f£` % .k ,. 1 2a17 2480 242 �'� - 235 >, If!i1T 1r�1 ♦ 21 ]� YA � FF i 57 ,9s ,RM,,.. y w as a Subject Property - vqwn L 1 f 2Ti' 24]6 N. 74 498 '/ i 1"F sP�e lasl Modified: Au9u�119, 2008 nimp�eue mex.�a� 21 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0036) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0036 Staff Memo Variance.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E application 07292019 as amended by CommDev Staff.pdf Attachment B. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 Attachment C. Slope Exhibit.pdf Attachment C. Slope Exhibit TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17- 1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the norther portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the norther portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision). Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vai Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane. This variance request precedes a rezoning and minor subdivision request, and follows an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, that will culminate in the creation of future Parcel E. It is anticipated that, if approved, the newly created site will be sold to generate revenue to offset the Town of Vail subsidy provided for the development of the 32 Unit Chamonix Vail Townhome project. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B) and slope exhibit (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The Chamonix Vail Community, a 32 unit townhome style development in 10 buildings, was completed in 2017. The Townhouse Plat for the development was reviewed and approved administratively in December of 2017, allowing the sale of the individual units and also setting aside an area described as Parcel D for future development. It is the intent of the applicant to combine this area with a portion of Parcel A (West Vail Fire Station site) to create future Parcel E. In 1978, the Town of Vail developed hazard regulations to protect structures, residents and the aesthetic character of the Town through restrictions on development within floodplains, avalanche paths and special provisions concerning development on steep slopes (See Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1978). These regulations restricted development on steep slopes, those defined has having a gradient in excess of 40%, to only the Single -Family Residential (SFR) District, Two -Family Residential (R) District and the Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) Districts. These same restrictions exist in the current Vail Town Code. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: 12-21-10: Development Restricted.- A. estricted: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater except in single-family residential, two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. The term "structure" as used in this section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. Town of Vail Page 2 C. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accord with chapter 12 of this title. D. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed in the blue avalanche hazard zone. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with chapter 12 of this title. Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits'; and by section 12-3-7, `Amendment'; of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Town of Vail Page 3 A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 4 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2420 Chamonix Lane Legal Description: The western portion of Parcels B and the norther portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision) Zoning: Proposed Housing (H) District (Currently General Use (GU) and Housing (H) Districts Land Use Plan Designation: Chamonix Master Plan Current Land Use: Vacant Geological Hazards: Slopes in excess of 40% (approximately 2/3 rd of future parcel) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Residential Housing (H) District South: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) District East: Fire Station General Use (GU) District West: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant's request is approval of a variance to construct a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU on future Parcel E. According to the Vail Town Code, structures can be built on slopes of 40% or greater without a variance. Multiple -family structures have been permitted on slopes of 40% or greater elsewhere in Town, subject to prescribed development standards (i.e. density control, setbacks, building height, site coverage, off-street parking, etc.) without any negative impacts to existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; it is reasonable to infer that the same will be true on the future Parcel E housing site. Examples of which include Middle Creek Village Apartments, Solar Vail Apartments and the Chalets at Mountain Plaza. These were all completed without resulting in negative impacts to the immediate or surrounding areas. The requested variance will have no negative impacts on existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 5 Staff finds the proposed variance does meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The variance request is to allow a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU to be constructed on a site in the Housing zone district with slopes 40% or greater. The degree of relief requested from this provision of the Vail Town Code is the minimum amount needed to achieve uniformity of treatment among sites in the district without a grant of special privilege. Other developments within the Housing (H) District have encountered similar challenges resulting in the need for variance relief. The Timber Ridge Village Apartments were faced with steep slopes and high severity rockfall conditions which caused the need for variances to construct 15 -foot tall retaining walls. Similarly, the Lionsridge Apartments were faced with naturally occurring steep slopes, road sluffing conditions, and moderate severity rockfall conditions that created the need for substantial rockfall mitigation and retaining walls over 20 feet in height. The Solar Vail Apartments were impacted by greater than 40% slope conditions requiring the need for variances. Further, the Middle Creek Village Apartments were constrained by both steep slopes and the Middle Creek drainage floodplain. The Chamonix Vail Parcel E falls into the same category of practical difficulties as similar Housing zoned developments. To ensure compatibility of future development on the site a companion development plan application has been provided. The companion plan ensures the appropriateness of development with many of the development standards consistent with the Housing zone district. As a result, a multiple -family structure is permitted with the grant of a variance on slopes 40% or greater; any future development on Parcel E will achieve compatibility, consistency and uniformity with the development objectives of the Town Code without a grant of special privilege. Staff finds the proposed variance does meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no negative impact or effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Through the development review process, future development will be required to all applicable requirements related to ingress/egress onto Chamonix Lane, ensuring public safety in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 6 Therefore, Staff finds the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the norther portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision), and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane/the western portion of Parcels B and the norther portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 9, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties located within slopes in excess of 40%,- 2. 0%, 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- Town easons: Town of Vail Page 7 a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties located within slopes in excess of 40%.; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties located within slopes in excess of 40%." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 C. Slope Exhibit Town of Vail Page 8 fz I Ld ii o —o ,LO H MEMORANDUM To: Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager From: George Ruther, Housing Director, representing the Vail Town Council Date: July 29, 2019 Re: Chamonix Vail Development Parcel — Chamonix Master Plan Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Amendment to Approved Development Plan Applications (PEC19-0032 to PEC19-0036 and PEC19-0040). I. PURPOSE The Vail Town Council has instructed the Town staff to submit the necessary development applications to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. The expressed purpose of the sale is to encourage infill residential development, generate revenue from the sale of the property, and to support the creation of one additional deed -restricted home on the Chamonix Vail Parcel. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the Town's development applications for a: 1) An amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category; 2) Minor subdivision; 3) Zone district boundary district; 4) Conditional use permit; 5) Variance; and 6) An amendment to the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood Approved Development Plan. Each of the applications is intended to finalize the creation of the development parcel at 2420 Chamonix Lane. The first step in finalizing the creation of this development parcel began at the time the Chamonix Vail Community Plat was recorded. According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." Additional steps are underway to prepare the parcel for development as originally contemplated with the recording of the Plat. II. REQUEST The Housing Department of the Town of Vail, acting on the direction of the property owner, the Town of Vail, represented by the Vail Town Council, is requesting approval of six development applications. The six applications include the following: 1. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment: The Chamonix Master Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on January 6, 2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009. The master plan area is the entire former Hud -Worth property, including the West Vail Fire Station (Parcel A and Parcel B). According to the adopted Plan, the charge made by the Vail Town Council was to "optimize the site" with the ultimate goal of balancing density with neighborhood impact, traffic, parking, aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that addresses the need for affordable housing in the community. The purpose of the master plan amendment is to update certain references within the plan to facilitate the intended residential development on Future Parcel E. An amendment to the Chamonix land Use Category is also necessary to allow for non -deed restricted residential development. This amendment is shown below with new text in bold: CMP Chamonix Master Plan Area Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employee housing, dwelling units permitted as conditional uses in the Housing (H) District, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as afire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. 2. Minor Subdivision: The Vail Town Code defines a "minor subdivision" as any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. In September of 2017, the Town of Vail, serving as the Declarant, created Lots 1 through 32 of the Chamonix Vail Community Parcel C of the Chamonix Vail Community, and remaining Parcel D for future development. As Parcel D is not a legal stand-alone lot as it was created through a Townhome Plat, a further subdivision process is necessary. At this time, the Town of Vail seeks to amend both the size and configuration of Parcel A and Parcel D through a change in the common property line location, as depicted on the attached map. No new unplatted property is being subdivided. Instead, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to Parcel D thereby amending both the size and configurations of the two parcels, respectively. The purpose of this minor subdivision is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The new legal description for the minor subdivision shall be: Final Plat Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, state of Colorado The applicant's response to the criteria for a minor subdivision is set forth in Section III of this memorandum. 3. Zone District Boundary Amendment: According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, Parcel D is zoned Housing (H) District and Parcel A is zoned General Use (GU) District. Upon approval of the minor subdivision application, that portion of Parcel A which shall become a part of Parcel D, will need to be rezoned from the General Use (GU) District. The Town of Vail is requesting approval to rezone a portion of Parcel A to the Housing (H) District, consistent with the remaining portion of future Parcel E. The purpose of this zone district boundary request is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The applicant's response to the criteria for a zone district boundary amendment is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 4. Conditional Use Permit: Dwelling units, which are not employee housing units, are allowed within the Housing (H) District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. In this instance, the criteria established for granting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for non -deed -restricted dwelling units are listed in Section 12-61-3 of the Vail Town Code. A response to the criteria is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 5. Variance: Chapter 12-21 of the Vail Town Code prescribes regulations for building within hazard areas in the Town of Vail. Further, Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, indicates "no structure shall be built on a slope of 40% or greater, except in the single-family or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. Residential structures allowed in those two districts include single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings. The purpose of this variance approval is to allow for the construction of a multiple family dwelling on a portion of a development site with slopes 40% or greater. The applicant's response to the criteria for a variance approval is set forth in Section III of this memorandum, below. 6. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: An Approved Development Plan was adopted for Lots 1 through 32, Parcel C, and Parcel D. The new Chamonix Vail Townhomes were constructed and completed consistent with the Approved Development Plan. Parcel D, remains vacant at this time and available for future development as noted on the recorded final plat. It 3 was the property owner's intent to exclude Parcel D from the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood development. The Town of Vail requests approval of an amendment to the Approved Development Plan. The Amended Approved Development Plan is intended to be in two phases; one for the existing Chamonix Townhome Development with minor modifications and a second for development on future Parcel E, The Development Plan for future Parcel E shall include the following development standards: • Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses: Those uses listed in Sections 12-61-2 through 4, respectively, as prescribed by the Vail Town Code. • Setbacks: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-5 of the Vail Town Code, as further depicted on the Amended Approved Development Plan. • Site Coverage: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-6 of the Vail Town Code. • Landscaping and Site Development: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-7 of the Vail Town Code. • Parking and Loading: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-8 of the Vail Town Code. • Lot Area and Site Dimensions: as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as depicted on the approved development plan • Building Height: The allowable building height shall not exceed 40 feet (40') for a flat or mansard roof. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 44 feet (44'). A maximum building elevation related to Chamonix Road consistent with the Chamonix Master Plan will also be included. • Density Control Provisions for Parcel E: a) Number of dwelling units —a total of up to four dwelling units within a single structure on the combined area of Parcel E. At least one of the dwelling units shall be a deed - restricted EHU. b) Total gross residential floor area (GRFA) — Not more than 7,200 square feet of GRFA total. The one deed -restricted EHU shall be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in size. The first 1,200 square of GRFA shall be excluded from any GRFA calculation. C) GRFA Calculation - For the purposes of determining compliance with the density control provisions, GRFA shall be calculated pursuant to Section 12-15-3 of the Vail Town Code. III. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS; RESPONSE TO REVIEW CRITERIA A. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment The Chamonix Master Plan does not prescribe criteria for the review of a proposed amendment to the plan. That said, however, the same review criteria are used in the preparation of the amendment to the master plan as have been relied upon by the Town's Planning & Environmental Commission and supported by the Community Development Department for the past three decades. Those criteria include: :l 1. How have conditions changed since the original adoption of the Master Plan? Conditions have changed substantially since the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan more than a decade ago. In the time period since the adoption of the plan the following actions have taken place: • The West Vail Fire Station has been fully completed • The Chamonix Vail Townhomes Approved Development Plan has been approved • The development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes has been completed • The availability and affordability of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes for Vail residents has become the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community • The Vail Town Council has since adopted the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan and adopted a goal of acquiring 1,000 new deed -restrictions by the year 2027 2. How does the proposed amendment to the Chamonix Master Plan achieve the desired outcomes intended of the plan? The proposed amendment continues to achieve the intended outcome of the plan. As intended, the site was identified for deed -restricted homes for Vail residents. As such, and as recommended within the plan, the site was to be rezoned to the Housing (H) District. The Housing (H) District allows free market dwellings to be developed within the District. During the course of the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes, Parcel D was identified as an area too costly to reasonably construct deed -restricted homes. To that end, Parcel D was set aside on the Final Plat for Chamonix Vail Community as a future site for residential development. The Vail Town Council, acting on behalf of the owner of the property, has instructed the Town staff to submit the applications necessary to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, and, in doing so, ensure at least one additional deed -restricted home is constructed on the site. By intention, proceeds from the sale are intended to be used to offset the $4M financial subsidy provided by the Vail taxpayer to develop the Chamonix Vail Townhomes and to further advance the Town's adopted housing goal. 3. How is the Chamonix Master Plan in error? The plan is in error as it does not accurately acknowledge or fully recognize the permitted and conditional uses prescribed by the recommended zone district designation of Housing (H) District. The plan correctly recommends rezoning Parcel B to the Housing (H) District yet fails to acknowledge that free market dwelling units are allowed in the District when developed for the sole purpose of subsidizing the deed -restricted homes on the property. The Town provide a nearly $4M subsidy in the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes. Parcel D was set aside on the recorded plat for future residential development. A portion, if not all, of that future residential development was intended to be free market dwelling units. Minor Subdivision: Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the preliminary plan, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed minor subdivision is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies as outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance, the applicant relied upon the following planning -related documents for guidance: • The Vail Land Use Plan • The Chamonix Vail Community Plat • The Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan • The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Examples of consistency and compatibility include: • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements • 2011 Chamonix Master Plan Amendment • The Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations Vail Land Use Plan — In 2009, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2, Series Of 2009: A Resolution Adopting The Chamonix Master Plan, To Facilitate The Development Of Employee Housing And A Fire Station On The "Chamonix Parcel" And "Wendy's Parcel" And To Amend The Vail Land Use Plan, Pursuant To Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan To Designate The Chamonix Master Plan Area Located At 2399 North Frontage Road And 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A And B, Re -Subdivision Of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 2, the West Vail Fire Station has been completed on Parcel A as intended. Further, the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood has also been completed as intended. At this time, only Parcel D is yet to be developed as intended. This minor subdivision application is the final phase to be completed. The small, triangular portion of Parcel A that is to be added to Parcel D by this subdivision facilitates development on future Parcel E without having any negative impacts on the operation and continued use of the fire station on Parcel A. There is no minimum lot size requirement in the General Use district, regardless, Future Parcel A remains more than 1.2 acres in size. This subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Vail Land Use Plan recommendations. • Chamonix Vail Community Plat — According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." This minor subdivision, through the inclusion of a small portion of Parcel A, does not violate, or in anyway frustrate, the intended purpose of Parcel D, as set forth in the approved Community Plat. In fact, in many ways, it only improves and further enhances the original development objectives for Parcel D. • Town of Vail Zoning Regulations — The Zoning Regulations have been enacted for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. The proposed minor subdivision advances the general purpose of the Zoning Regulations and helps to sustain the Town's character as a resort community of the highest quality. This will be further achieved as any future development application shall be required to demonstrate continued compliance with the adopted Zoning Regulations. • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements - In July of 2018, the Vail Town Council adopted its first housing policy statements. According to Resolution No. 30, Series of 2018, "through the adoption of housing policy statements, it is the Vail Town Council's intent to articulate the approaches the Town will take to realize its vision, achieves its housing goal, and address the most critical issue — housing —facing the Vail community." This minor subdivision is consistent with the following housing policy statements adopted by the Vail Town Council: o #1 Housing IS infrastructure o #2 Housing Partners o #3 Private Sector Importance o #5 Breakdown Barriers o #6 Funding Creates Deed -Restrictions o #10 Funding is Policy 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and The proposed subdivision complies with the standards prescribed within the Vail Town Code, including Title 12, "Zoning Regulations". The proposed minor subdivision is simply a 7 resubdivision of already subdivided and developable land that is already lawfully platted with associated development rights. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed minor subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among surrounding land uses consistent with Vail's development objectives. Historically, the Town of Vail has articulated its development objectives as the specific purposes contained within Section 12-1-2 (B) of the Vail Town Code. To that end, in part, the proposed minor subdivision provides for adequate light, air, sanitation and drainage given the resulting infill development; promotes safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation given its adjacency to Chamonix Lane; conserves and maintains established community qualities and economic values as the property is already developable and any resulting development must comply with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards; and does not create excessive population densities or overcrowding. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and The proposed minor subdivision will result in positive impacts on the surrounding area. The two properties are platted and zoned for development. If it were not for the exponential cost of developing on Parcel D, it would have been developed with residential uses and structures in conjunction with the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. As a result of the plat covenant and the Approved Development Plan requirements, future development on the site is limited to low density residential structures designed in compliance with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards. In sum, the structure built on the site will be used similarly to other structures existing in the residential neighborhood and be designed in a similar context, consistent with the adopted design guidelines and standards. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and The proposed minor subdivision is located and designed in such a manner that avoids creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities. The area surrounding the proposed minor subdivision is fully developed and properly served by existing public utilities and services. Given the infill development nature of this application, a "leapfrog" pattern of development is avoided. Infill development is a proven means of adding density within an existing neighborhood with no adverse impacts on community character within the area. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and The utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area and avoid future land disruption to otherwise upgrade undersized lines. As a result of the proposed minor subdivision, a maximum of four dwellings units could be constructed on the combined area of future Parcel E. Utility providers have previously confirmed the adequacy of the size of the lines and services to accommodate the likely increase in population resulting from a total of four new dwelling units. In fact, an existing water line was looped in the neighborhood during the infrastructure installation at Chamonix Vail to better accommodate development in the area. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed minor subdivision promotes the growth of an orderly, viable community and serves the best interest of the community as a whole. Town of Vail taxpayer monies were used to acquire the Chamonix Vail property. Parcel D is a developable portion of the site. As a result of this minor subdivision approval, the Town intends to sell the vacant land for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Net proceeds from the sale of future Parcel E will help to reduce the taxpayer subsidy provided in the original purchase, and subsequent development, of the property. Further, this minor subdivision creates an opportunity for infill development. Infill development is often a preferred means of growth of a community as it takes advantage of existing services and infrastructure without expanding the community boundaries to accommodate growth. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed minor subdivision results in beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including vegetation, undeveloped hillsides, wildlife and other desirable natural features. Given the infill nature of future Parcel E, and the land disturbance already existing from the installation of public utilities and the construction of Chamonix Lane, one additional built structure within an already existing built -out neighborhood is not detrimental to the natural environment. In fact, it could be argued that accommodating infill development has less of a negative impact on the natural environment than greenfield development achieved through expansion of the Town's municipal boundary. An alternative to infill development would be to accommodate growth and expansion on undeveloped areas surrounding the boundaries of the community. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. C. Zone District Boundary Amendment: Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outline in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the amendment increases the amount of land area in the Town of Vail designated for deed -restricted housing, yet maintains the availability of town -owned facilities most often associated with development in the General Use District. Arguably, this amendment is not only compatible with the development objectives of the Town, but it advances the Town's development objectives by increasing opportunities for desirable outcomes that may not exist otherwise. This amendment furthers the Town's housing goals and advances the Vail Town Council critical actions, as identified in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018-2020. (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and The zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site as well as the existing and potential surrounding land uses. As proposed, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to future Parcel E in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. This amendment ensures that zone district designation of future Parcel E is consistent with existing Parcel D. Parcel D, as zoned, provides for both free-market and resident -occupied, deed -restricted residential uses. Since the development potential of future Parcel E is based upon approval of an Approved Development Plan, and not a proportional percentage of the lot area, this additional land area does not proportionally impact the size of any future structure, or increase the intensity of the future uses on site. The additional square feet of land area to be zoned into the Housing District does not negatively impact existing and potential surrounding land uses. (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses which are consistent the Town's development objectives. For instance, when this portion of Parcel A is rezoned to the Housing District, it increases the constructability of development on future Parcel E, given the recta -linear configuration of the site. Moreover, the change in zoning increases the marketability of the property, thereby increasing the economic incentive granted by the Zoning Regulations to support resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes within the community. In many ways, this application achieves and supports exactly what is intended by the Town's development objectives. 10 (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning. The requested change from the General Use District to the Housing District allows the entire site to be zoned consistent with the Town's development objectives and further supports the Town's goal of acquiring 1,000 new resident -occupied, deed - restrictions by the year 2027. According to the 2018 Housing Policy Statements adopted by the Vail Town Council, "Housing IS Infrastructure" and infrastructure is the support system of a whole community. Further, it is unclear how a claim of "spot zoning" could apply to this application, and therefore, irrelevant and does not pertain. (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The zone district amendment has no negative impacts on the natural environment. As presently zoned, both the General Use District and the Housing District grant certain development rights. One would be hard pressed to characterize future Parcel E as critical habitat or ecologically sensitive for natural environment purposes. This application supports infill development. (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the Housing District. According to Section 12-61-1, in part, the purpose of the District is, "intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing..." As proposed and covenanted, future development on the site is limited to three free-market homes and one, resident -occupied, deed -restricted home. This use is clearly consistent with the purpose provisions of the Housing District. (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and The zone district amendment is supported by demonstrated changes in conditions which are no longer appropriate or relevant. The entire Chamonix Property was purchased by the Town for an intended purpose. Parcel A was acquired by the Town of Vail to construct a fire station in West Vail. To do so, Parcel A was platted and zoned to the General Use District. As a result, the fire station has been completed as planned. The 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is no longer needed to accomplish the development objective and may not have been included in the original plat had it been known at the time. 11 Further, Parcel B and Parcel C were created to support the development of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes. The new Chamonix Vail Neighborhood was completed on the combined area of Parcels. Parcel D was subsequently created to accommodate future residential development. The inclusion of a portion of Parcel A, through a minor subdivision, supports that purpose. Changing the zoning to the Housing District achieves the Town's development objective for future development on Parcel E without negatively impacting the current or future use of Parcel A. (8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed rezoning. D. Conditional Use Permit: Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Free-market (non -deed -restricted) homes are an allowed use in the Housing District provided their sole purpose is to subsidize resident -occupied, deed -restricted housing on the property. Upon approval of the five development applications, the Town of Vail intends to sell Parcel E, with covenants, for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Arguably, the relationship and impacts of free-market development are no different than deed -restricted development. The only difference is who is permitted to occupy the home. Residential uses are permitted on the site today. This application does not change the uses on the site. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, etc. Again, residential development is permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon traffic. Future development on the site shall be designed to comply with the Town's adopted standards for development. Again, residential development is already permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. For 12 example, residents of deed -restricted homes do not have any greater or lesser impact on removal of snow than residents of free-market homes. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use permit will not have a negative effect upon the character of the area, including scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding area. As contemplated, and prescribed by the development standards proposed for Parcel E, the new residential structure will be similar in scale and bulk to similar residential structures in the immediate vicinity. For example, by covenant and development approval, the new residences will be a maximum of 7,200 sq. ft., respectively with a maximum building height of 44 feet. According to Eagle County Assessor's information, existing multiple -family homes in the immediate vary greatly in size, with the most adjacent homes being approximately 7,200 square in size and 44 feet in height or less. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and A total of four dwelling units are proposed on future Parcel E. Three of the dwelling units are non -deed -restricted and one is deed -restricted. The Vail Town Council intends to sell future Parcel E upon approval of the minor subdivision, zone district amendment, conditional use permit, and amendment to the approved development plan. Net proceeds from the sale will be used to reimburse the Town's housing fund for a portion of the nearly $4M subsidy provided to facilitate the development of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and A total of three, non -deed restricted dwelling units are proposed. Upon approval, 36 homes total will be provided within the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood; only three if which are not deed - restricted. As such, approximately 8% of the total number of dwelling units are free market. Furthermore, pursuant to the Approved Development Plan (PEC15-0019), "up to 40,000 square feet" of GRFA is allowed on Parcel B and Parcel C. A total of 7,200 square feet, or only 18%, of 13 free-market GRFA is proposed on future Parcel E. The Zoning Regulations would allow an additional 4,500 square feet, or 11.25%, of GRFA C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and The three non -deed -restricted dwelling units may only be constructed on future Parcel E, provided the one, deed -restricted dwelling unit is 1) either already completed and obtained a certificate of occupancy, or 2) is being constructed simultaneously with the non -deed -restricted units and obtained a certificate. Either way, the deed -restricted dwelling unit is provided in conjunction with the non -deed -restricted dwelling units. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. The three, non -deed -restricted dwelling units are compatible with the site and the buildings and uses on adjacent properties. In fact, in many ways, the proposed development enhances the transition of the site from larger -sized multiple family buildings to smaller -scaled residences to the west and north of the development site. Variance Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant's request is approval of a variance to construct a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU on future Parcel E. According to the Vail Town Code, structures can be built on slopes of 40% or greater without a variance. Multiple -family structures have been permitted on slopes of 40% or greater elsewhere in Town, subject to prescribed development standards (i.e. density control, setbacks, building height, site coverage, off-street parking, etc.) without any negative impacts to existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, it is reasonable to infer that the same will be true on the future Parcel E housing site. Examples of which include Middle Creek Village Apartments, Solar Vail Apartments and the Chalets at Mountain Plaza. These were all completed without resulting in negative impacts to the immediate or surrounding areas. A slope stability report was completed by the consulting geotechnical engineers with Ceasare, Inc. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the feasibility of developing a multiple -family structure on the site given the existing slope conditions and the presence of a two-tiered retaining wall immediately adjacent to the south. In analyzing the site and completing the report, the consulting engineers relied upon actual "as -built" conditions to make their findings. The conclusions of the report found that the site was suitable for development provided any future structure has a setback of 25' from the southerly property. Additional analysis is recommended, though not required, by the engineers at the time of design review application submittal. As a result, the future multiple -family residential structure use of the site may undergo additional review 14 to further verify compatibility with the existing uses in the vicinity in the immediate vicinity of the site. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The variance request is to allow a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU to be constructed on a site in the Housing zone district with slopes 40% or greater. The degree of relief requested from this provision of the Vail Town Code is the minimum amount needed to achieve uniformity of treatment among sites in the district without a grant of special privilege. The presence of the 40% or greater slope condition is the result of several factors. First, the natural topography of the area results in some areas having slopes 40% or greater. Second, the construction of Chamonix Lane and the sluffing of road grade materials down the slope exacerbate the steepness of slope conditions of the site. This road sluffing condition is prevalent outside the platted Chamonix Lane right-of-way. The inconvenient truth of the Town's housing shortage is that greater attention was granted to free- market development in the early days of Vail than was granted to addressing the need for deed - restricted housing. As a result, the more easily developed sites, ones which had no physical hardships or faced any practical difficulties, thereby requiring no variances to develop, were quickly gobbled up and already built upon. In the end, many of the properties now zoned to the Housing district are what is leftover and in the least ideal locations from a development site suitability standpoint. These properties, for example, are negatively impacted by practical difficulties such as challenging access, marginal soils, steep slopes, floodplains and wetlands, geologic hazards, and other similar difficulties. To verify this point one simply needs to look to other Housing district sites to appreciate the resulting difficulties first hand. Timber Ridge Village Apartments were faced with steep slopes and high severity rockfall conditions which caused the need for variances to construct 15 -foot tall retaining walls. Similarly, the Lionsridge Apartments too were faced with naturally occurring steep slopes, road sluffing conditions, and moderate severity rockfall conditions that created the need for substantial rockfall mitigation and retaining walls over 20 -feet in height. The Solar Vail Apartments were impacted by greater than 40% slope conditions requiring the need for variances. Further, the Middle Creek Village Apartments were constrained by both steep slopes and the Middle Creek drainage floodplain, and, the Arosa Duplex was negatively impacted by a debris flow hazard limiting its development potential to something less than otherwise permitted by zoning. The Chamonix Vail Parcel E falls into the same category of practical difficulties as similar Housing zoned developments. To ensure compatibility of future development on the site a companion development plan application has been provided. The companion plan ensures the appropriateness of development with many of the development standards consistent with the Housing zone district. As a result, a multiple -family structure is permitted with the grant of a variance on slopes 40% or greater; any future development on Parcel E will achieve compatibility, consistency and uniformity with the development objectives of the Town Code without a grant of special privilege. 15 None of the practical difficulties or physical hardships described upon are the cause of any actions taken by the applicant. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no negative impact or effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This portion of the Chamonix Vail Community has been intended for development since its original platting and, in fact, could have supported increased density and populations. Moreover, some community members have suggested that significantly more density should have been developed on the site, including within the area of future Parcel E. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The availability of affordable housing remains the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community. This issue has been at the forefront of community issues as far back as the adoption of the 1973 Vail Plan. At that time, the community identified three critical issues facing the future success of the community. They included: 1) Loading and delivery 2) Parking 3) Seasonal Housing It should not be inferred that little, or nothing, has been done to address the housing needs of the resort community. It is quite the opposite. A significant amount of action has taken place over the past 45 -plus years. Today, the Vail community has acquired an ownership interest in more than 815 deed -restricted homes. The reality, however, is that even with more than 875 deed -restricted homes; the demand for housing still far exceeds both the current and projected supply. Most recent figures provided by the 2018 Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solutions Report indicates there will be a shortfall of approximately 4,030 homes with the Eagle River Valley in the year 2020. While the approval of this application results in only one additional deed -restricted home, overall, it further supports the future creation of additional housing through the utilization of nearly one-half acre of already platted and otherwise developable land area in the Town of Vail. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. W. The proposed amendment to the approved development plan focuses on the development standards and land use regulations. Considerations such as architecture, character, scale, massing, etc. are intended to be addressed during the design review process by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. To that end, to ensure these considerations are addressed consistently, the Town's adopted design standards and guidelines shall apply. Please see the Amended Approved Development Plan (Phase 1 and 2) for all required information concerning the Development Plan. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. See Criteria A. above. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. See Criteria A. above. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. See Criteria A. above. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. See Section III A (A)(1) of this memorandum above. 17 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0033) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0033 Staff Memo Rezoning.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Map illustrating portion of Parcel A to be rezoned..pdf Attachment A. Map illustrating portion of Parcel A to be rezoned. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E application 07292019 as amended by CommDev Staff.pdf Attachment B. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 rowN OF vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0033) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther, Housing Director, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 N. Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D Vail Das Schone Filing 1, from General Use (GU) to Housing (H). The parcel of land is located immediately southwest of the existing Chamonix Vail Neighborhood, to the northwest of the West Vail Fire Station. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the West Vail Fire Station parcel from General Use (GU) to Housing (H) in order to facilitate the creation of a site for future development. This portion of Parcel A will be combined with a property identified as Parcel D on the Chamonix Vail Community Townhome Plat to create a future Parcel E. This future Parcel E will be created through a Minor Subdivision process to be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a future date. The subdivision application has been delayed due to a scheduling issue with the surveyor. It is necessary to process the rezoning application in advance, or concurrently, with the subdivision application to ensure that the future parcel will have unified zoning. It is anticipated that, if approved, the newly created and consistently zoned site will be sold to generate revenue to offset the Town of Vail subsidy provided for the development of the 32 Unit Chamonix Vail Townhome project. The graphic below shows that portion of Parcel A proposed to be rezoned from General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District. _ ... 1WQYt, - The proposed rezoning, which must be approved via ordinance by the Vail Town Council, will not take effect until the recordation of the final plat, creating Parcel E, has occurred with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. This condition will be included with the ordinance relating to the rezoning. Permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Housing (H) District may be found in Section IV, applicable planning documents. Town of Vail Page 2 III. BACKGROUND The background of Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing is as follows: • On December 12, 1980 the subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail, via Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980. • On November 18, 2008, Parcel A was rezoned from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) zone district to General Use (GU), via Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2008. • On January 6, 2009, the Town Council adopted an amendment to the Official Land Use Map, a component of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, via Resolution 2, Series of 2009 to classify the property as being within the Chamonix Land Use category. The same resolution also adopted the Chamonix Master Plan. • In 2010/11, The West Vail Fire Station was constructed. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The Community Development Department believes that following provisions of the Chamonix Master Plan, Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan, Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Housing 2027 Plan, and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Chamonix Master Plan 2009 and as Amended 2019 Housing within the site shall be consistent with the permitted and conditional uses of the Housing (H) District. The site should be optimized to provide the greatest amount of employee housing. Re -zoning the site to Housing (H) District is preferred to allow flexibility in design and development. Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan (in part) - The Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan is a visioning document that begins with a set of values that outline what is truly important to the community. The plan then details land use and development, parks and recreation, environment, housing, transportation, economy, community and public safety topics, including specific vision statements, long-term goals, and actions and strategies over the next 5 years to achieve those goals. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Use employee housing fund for buy -downs and other programs that will increase the number of employees living within the town. Town of Vail Page 3 • Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for developers to build employee housing units. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Goal #2: Energy Management in Buildings and Transportation: Reduce the town's 2007 baseline green house gas emissions. • Support employee housing initiatives in order to reduce trips into Vail. HOUSING Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Conduct inventory of all sites with development potential and pursue opportunities for acquiring undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. • Update the Vail Land Use Plan and identify more areas for employee housing. ECONOMY Goal #3: Maintain a town -wide workforce in which at least 30 percent of people who work in Vail also live in Vail. • Support the local economy by working with the business community to address future workforce housing needs as they relate to business in Vail. Vail Land Use Plan (in part) — The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. One specific measure used to implement the recommendations of the Land Use Plan includes amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Other measures include changes to ordinances and regulations or policies adopted by the Town. Chapter 11- Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Town of Vail Page 4 2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7. New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail Housing 2027 — A Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community through the Creation and Support of Resident Housinq in Vail Ten Year Goal: "The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. " Vision: We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and Town of Vail Page 5 capitalizing on our unique position as North America's premier international mountain resort community in order to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives. Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community -driven purpose and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for the 21st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant challenge. Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community "We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail." Policy Statement - Resident Housing as Infrastructure "We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government." 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan — The purpose of this plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Goal #2 — Energy Efficiency: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change. Goal #6 — Transportation — Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. Vail Town Code — Zoning Regulations - These sections are included to provide the Commission with an understanding of the permitted and conditional uses in the Housing (H) District. Title 12, Chapter 6, Article 1: Housing Town of Vail Page 6 12-6I-1: PURPOSE: The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12-6I-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H district: Bicycle and pedestrian paths. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. 12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the planning and environmental commission) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents of the development, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Automated teller machines (ATMs) exterior to a building. Banks and financial institutions. Business offices and professional offices, as further regulated by section 12-16-7 Town of Vail Page 7 of this title. Child daycare facilities. Eating and drinking establishments. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Health clubs. Personal services, including, but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission.- A. ommission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Outdoor patios. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public parks and recreational facilities. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. 12-61-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Town of Vail Page 8 Minor arcades. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-61-5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be twenty feet (20) from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Variations to the twenty foot (20) setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the planning and environmental commission pursuant to chapter 17 of this title. 12-61-6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission, site coverage may be increased if seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. 12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: Town of Vail Page 9 At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-6I-8: PARKING AND LOADING: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter 10 of this title may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a parking management plan. The parking management plan shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include.- A. nclude: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. 12-6I-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses in section 12-61-3 of this article shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12-6I-10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the H district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan.- 1. lan:1. Lot area and site dimensions. Town of Vail Page 10 2. Building height. 3. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 12-6I-11: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED: A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the housing district will meet the intent of the zone district, an approved development plan shall be required. B. Plan Process And Procedures. The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with section 12-61-12 of this article and shall be submitted by the developer to the administrator, who shall refer it to the planning and environmental commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. C. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the housing district. E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 12-9A-10 of this title. F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the design review board in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 11 of this title prior to the commencement of site preparation. 12-6I-12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. Town of Vail Page 11 12-6I-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2399 N. Frontage Rd W (portion of the site to be rezoned)* Legal Description: Vail Das Schone, Filing 1, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D Parcel A Lot Size: 1.322 acres (57,586 square feet) Portion of Site to be Rezoned: 0.121 acres (5,291 square feet) Existing Zoning: General Use (GU) Proposed Zoning: Housing (H) District Land Use Plan Designation: Chamonix Master Plan Current Land Use: Undeveloped portion of West Vail Fire Station Anticipated Future Land Use. Market Rate and Employee Housing Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes Town of Vail Page 12 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: The extent to which the zone district amendments are consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. The development objectives for the community as identified in the Chamonix Master Plan, Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan, Land Use Plan, Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan, and the Vail Housing 2027 Plan are: • Housing within the site shall be consistent with the permitted and conditional uses of the Housing (H) District. (Chamonix Master Plan) • Continue to manage growth through infill development with high quality residential, commercial and recreation uses that maintain the quality, character and diversity of the town. • Support the development of employee housing to support the local economy, and reduce the environmental impacts of transportation. • Reduce total Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. The zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outline in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the amendment increases the amount of land area in the Town of Vail designated for deed - restricted housing, yet maintains the availability of town -owned facilities most often associated with development in the General Use District. Arguably, this amendment is not only compatible with the development objectives of the Town, but it advances the Town's development objectives by increasing opportunities for desirable outcomes that may not exist otherwise. This amendment furthers the Town's housing goals and advances the Vail Town Council critical actions, as identified in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018-2020. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 13 Existing Use Zoning District North: Undeveloped Land Housing H South: Interstate 70 None East: Shell Gas Station Heavy Services HS West: Single Family Residence Two Family Primary/Secondary (PS) VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: The extent to which the zone district amendments are consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. The development objectives for the community as identified in the Chamonix Master Plan, Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan, Land Use Plan, Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan, and the Vail Housing 2027 Plan are: • Housing within the site shall be consistent with the permitted and conditional uses of the Housing (H) District. (Chamonix Master Plan) • Continue to manage growth through infill development with high quality residential, commercial and recreation uses that maintain the quality, character and diversity of the town. • Support the development of employee housing to support the local economy, and reduce the environmental impacts of transportation. • Reduce total Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. The zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outline in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the amendment increases the amount of land area in the Town of Vail designated for deed - restricted housing, yet maintains the availability of town -owned facilities most often associated with development in the General Use District. Arguably, this amendment is not only compatible with the development objectives of the Town, but it advances the Town's development objectives by increasing opportunities for desirable outcomes that may not exist otherwise. This amendment furthers the Town's housing goals and advances the Vail Town Council critical actions, as identified in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018-2020. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 13 2. The extent to which the zone district amendments are suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. The zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site as well as the existing and potential surrounding land uses. As proposed, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to future Parcel E in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. This amendment ensures that the zone district designation of future Parcel E is consistent with existing Parcel D. Parcel D, as zoned, provides for both free-market and resident -occupied, deed -restricted residential uses. Since the development potential of future Parcel E is based upon approval of an Approved Development Plan, and not a proportional percentage of the lot area, this additional land area does not proportionally impact the size of any future structure, or increase the intensity of the future uses on site. The additional square feet of land area to be zoned into the Housing District does not negatively impact existing and potential surrounding land uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendments present a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses which are consistent the Town's development objectives. The rezoning facilitates the creation of future Parcel E in a rectilinear configuration improving the constructability of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendments provide for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. The proposed zone district amendments provide for the growth of an orderly viable community by establishing sites for employee housing and other residential uses in locations near existing infrastructure, including existing roads, utilities, and bus service. The amendment does not constitute spot zoning as it is compatible with and supportive of adjacent land uses, and is supported by several community goals identified in the comprehensive plan. The Community Development Department finds that rezoning a portion of Parcel A to the Housing (H) district serves the best interest of the community as a whole. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 14 5. The extent to which the zone district amendments result in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. The proposed rezoning will not directly result in adverse impacts to the natural environment. Future developments on the rezoned parcels will be required to adhere to all applicable environmental standards during development review, construction and operation. Any development in the Housing (H) District will also require review of a development plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission, as well as review of the design and landscaping plan by the Design Review Board. Although located on a hillside, this application is subsequent to PEC19-0036, an application for a variance to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Lane. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendments are consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose statement of the Housing (H) District and future developments on theses sites will also be required to be compatible with its intent, as demonstrated through the amended development plan. Below is the purpose statement for the Housing (H) zone district. Housing Section 12-61-1 PURPOSE The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Town of Vail Page 15 7. The extent to which the zone district amendments demonstrate how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The portion of the site that is proposed to be rezoned is not being used by the Vail Fire Department, which also has no plans for its future use. Combined to create future Parcel E, the rezoning will facilitate future development in the Housing District, a more appropriate and beneficial use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezonings. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District and setting forth details in regard thereto" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward this recommendation of approval, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections VII of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 9, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: Town of Vail Page 16 1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Map illustrating portion of Parcel A to be rezoned. B. Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E Application Narrative, 07-29-2019 Town of Vail Page 17 fi 1 Ld ce. ;u IX�l 4v +„ 4kV /• fir.-'�;x ,�., � �, '�'�� '���,s � 1• AA _ _ . � _. � ort ,1}+'���'�� -i � w.`; _. � ia.• �, �, •��'. Il 0 _0 -I Lo �LO I N 0 H MEMORANDUM To: Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager From: George Ruther, Housing Director, representing the Vail Town Council Date: July 29, 2019 Re: Chamonix Vail Development Parcel — Chamonix Master Plan Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Amendment to Approved Development Plan Applications (PEC19-0032 to PEC19-0036 and PEC19-0040). I. PURPOSE The Vail Town Council has instructed the Town staff to submit the necessary development applications to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. The expressed purpose of the sale is to encourage infill residential development, generate revenue from the sale of the property, and to support the creation of one additional deed -restricted home on the Chamonix Vail Parcel. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the Town's development applications for a: 1) An amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category; 2) Minor subdivision; 3) Zone district boundary district; 4) Conditional use permit; 5) Variance; and 6) An amendment to the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood Approved Development Plan. Each of the applications is intended to finalize the creation of the development parcel at 2420 Chamonix Lane. The first step in finalizing the creation of this development parcel began at the time the Chamonix Vail Community Plat was recorded. According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." Additional steps are underway to prepare the parcel for development as originally contemplated with the recording of the Plat. II. REQUEST The Housing Department of the Town of Vail, acting on the direction of the property owner, the Town of Vail, represented by the Vail Town Council, is requesting approval of six development applications. The six applications include the following: 1. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment: The Chamonix Master Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on January 6, 2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series of 2009. The master plan area is the entire former Hud -Worth property, including the West Vail Fire Station (Parcel A and Parcel B). According to the adopted Plan, the charge made by the Vail Town Council was to "optimize the site" with the ultimate goal of balancing density with neighborhood impact, traffic, parking, aesthetics, sustainability, and value in a way that addresses the need for affordable housing in the community. The purpose of the master plan amendment is to update certain references within the plan to facilitate the intended residential development on Future Parcel E. An amendment to the Chamonix land Use Category is also necessary to allow for non -deed restricted residential development. This amendment is shown below with new text in bold: CMP Chamonix Master Plan Area Included in this category are those properties which are identified as being included in the Chamonix Master Plan boundaries. Properties located within this land use category shall be encouraged to develop, per the Master Plan recommendations, as it has been found necessary in order for Vail to remain a successful resort community. Uses and activities for these areas are intended to encourage a safe, convenient and pleasant resident experience. The range of uses and activities appropriate in the Chamonix Master Plan (CMP) land use category may include deed restricted employee housing, dwelling units permitted as conditional uses in the Housing (H) District, private recreation facilities, private parking facilities, and institutional/public uses such as afire station and other municipal facilities to serve the needs of residents. 2. Minor Subdivision: The Vail Town Code defines a "minor subdivision" as any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. In September of 2017, the Town of Vail, serving as the Declarant, created Lots 1 through 32 of the Chamonix Vail Community Parcel C of the Chamonix Vail Community, and remaining Parcel D for future development. As Parcel D is not a legal stand-alone lot as it was created through a Townhome Plat, a further subdivision process is necessary. At this time, the Town of Vail seeks to amend both the size and configuration of Parcel A and Parcel D through a change in the common property line location, as depicted on the attached map. No new unplatted property is being subdivided. Instead, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to Parcel D thereby amending both the size and configurations of the two parcels, respectively. The purpose of this minor subdivision is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The new legal description for the minor subdivision shall be: Final Plat Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, state of Colorado The applicant's response to the criteria for a minor subdivision is set forth in Section III of this memorandum. 3. Zone District Boundary Amendment: According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, Parcel D is zoned Housing (H) District and Parcel A is zoned General Use (GU) District. Upon approval of the minor subdivision application, that portion of Parcel A which shall become a part of Parcel D, will need to be rezoned from the General Use (GU) District. The Town of Vail is requesting approval to rezone a portion of Parcel A to the Housing (H) District, consistent with the remaining portion of future Parcel E. The purpose of this zone district boundary request is to facilitate residential development on future Parcel E. The applicant's response to the criteria for a zone district boundary amendment is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 4. Conditional Use Permit: Dwelling units, which are not employee housing units, are allowed within the Housing (H) District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. In this instance, the criteria established for granting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for non -deed -restricted dwelling units are listed in Section 12-61-3 of the Vail Town Code. A response to the criteria is set forth in Section III of this memorandum below. 5. Variance: Chapter 12-21 of the Vail Town Code prescribes regulations for building within hazard areas in the Town of Vail. Further, Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, indicates "no structure shall be built on a slope of 40% or greater, except in the single-family or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. Residential structures allowed in those two districts include single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings. The purpose of this variance approval is to allow for the construction of a multiple family dwelling on a portion of a development site with slopes 40% or greater. The applicant's response to the criteria for a variance approval is set forth in Section III of this memorandum, below. 6. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: An Approved Development Plan was adopted for Lots 1 through 32, Parcel C, and Parcel D. The new Chamonix Vail Townhomes were constructed and completed consistent with the Approved Development Plan. Parcel D, remains vacant at this time and available for future development as noted on the recorded final plat. It 3 was the property owner's intent to exclude Parcel D from the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood development. The Town of Vail requests approval of an amendment to the Approved Development Plan. The Amended Approved Development Plan is intended to be in two phases; one for the existing Chamonix Townhome Development with minor modifications and a second for development on future Parcel E, The Development Plan for future Parcel E shall include the following development standards: • Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses: Those uses listed in Sections 12-61-2 through 4, respectively, as prescribed by the Vail Town Code. • Setbacks: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-5 of the Vail Town Code, as further depicted on the Amended Approved Development Plan. • Site Coverage: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-6 of the Vail Town Code. • Landscaping and Site Development: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-7 of the Vail Town Code. • Parking and Loading: Those requirements prescribed by Section 12-61-8 of the Vail Town Code. • Lot Area and Site Dimensions: as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as depicted on the approved development plan • Building Height: The allowable building height shall not exceed 40 feet (40') for a flat or mansard roof. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 44 feet (44'). A maximum building elevation related to Chamonix Road consistent with the Chamonix Master Plan will also be included. • Density Control Provisions for Parcel E: a) Number of dwelling units —a total of up to four dwelling units within a single structure on the combined area of Parcel E. At least one of the dwelling units shall be a deed - restricted EHU. b) Total gross residential floor area (GRFA) — Not more than 7,200 square feet of GRFA total. The one deed -restricted EHU shall be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in size. The first 1,200 square of GRFA shall be excluded from any GRFA calculation. C) GRFA Calculation - For the purposes of determining compliance with the density control provisions, GRFA shall be calculated pursuant to Section 12-15-3 of the Vail Town Code. III. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS; RESPONSE TO REVIEW CRITERIA A. Chamonix Master Plan Amendment The Chamonix Master Plan does not prescribe criteria for the review of a proposed amendment to the plan. That said, however, the same review criteria are used in the preparation of the amendment to the master plan as have been relied upon by the Town's Planning & Environmental Commission and supported by the Community Development Department for the past three decades. Those criteria include: :l 1. How have conditions changed since the original adoption of the Master Plan? Conditions have changed substantially since the adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan more than a decade ago. In the time period since the adoption of the plan the following actions have taken place: • The West Vail Fire Station has been fully completed • The Chamonix Vail Townhomes Approved Development Plan has been approved • The development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes has been completed • The availability and affordability of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes for Vail residents has become the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community • The Vail Town Council has since adopted the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan and adopted a goal of acquiring 1,000 new deed -restrictions by the year 2027 2. How does the proposed amendment to the Chamonix Master Plan achieve the desired outcomes intended of the plan? The proposed amendment continues to achieve the intended outcome of the plan. As intended, the site was identified for deed -restricted homes for Vail residents. As such, and as recommended within the plan, the site was to be rezoned to the Housing (H) District. The Housing (H) District allows free market dwellings to be developed within the District. During the course of the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes, Parcel D was identified as an area too costly to reasonably construct deed -restricted homes. To that end, Parcel D was set aside on the Final Plat for Chamonix Vail Community as a future site for residential development. The Vail Town Council, acting on behalf of the owner of the property, has instructed the Town staff to submit the applications necessary to facilitate the sale of future Parcel E, and, in doing so, ensure at least one additional deed -restricted home is constructed on the site. By intention, proceeds from the sale are intended to be used to offset the $4M financial subsidy provided by the Vail taxpayer to develop the Chamonix Vail Townhomes and to further advance the Town's adopted housing goal. 3. How is the Chamonix Master Plan in error? The plan is in error as it does not accurately acknowledge or fully recognize the permitted and conditional uses prescribed by the recommended zone district designation of Housing (H) District. The plan correctly recommends rezoning Parcel B to the Housing (H) District yet fails to acknowledge that free market dwelling units are allowed in the District when developed for the sole purpose of subsidizing the deed -restricted homes on the property. The Town provide a nearly $4M subsidy in the development of the Chamonix Vail Townhomes. Parcel D was set aside on the recorded plat for future residential development. A portion, if not all, of that future residential development was intended to be free market dwelling units. Minor Subdivision: Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the preliminary plan, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed minor subdivision is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies as outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. For the purpose of demonstrating compliance, the applicant relied upon the following planning -related documents for guidance: • The Vail Land Use Plan • The Chamonix Vail Community Plat • The Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan • The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Examples of consistency and compatibility include: • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements • 2011 Chamonix Master Plan Amendment • The Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations Vail Land Use Plan — In 2009, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2, Series Of 2009: A Resolution Adopting The Chamonix Master Plan, To Facilitate The Development Of Employee Housing And A Fire Station On The "Chamonix Parcel" And "Wendy's Parcel" And To Amend The Vail Land Use Plan, Pursuant To Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan To Designate The Chamonix Master Plan Area Located At 2399 North Frontage Road And 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A And B, Re -Subdivision Of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1. Since the adoption of Resolution No. 2, the West Vail Fire Station has been completed on Parcel A as intended. Further, the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood has also been completed as intended. At this time, only Parcel D is yet to be developed as intended. This minor subdivision application is the final phase to be completed. The small, triangular portion of Parcel A that is to be added to Parcel D by this subdivision facilitates development on future Parcel E without having any negative impacts on the operation and continued use of the fire station on Parcel A. There is no minimum lot size requirement in the General Use district, regardless, Future Parcel A remains more than 1.2 acres in size. This subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Vail Land Use Plan recommendations. • Chamonix Vail Community Plat — According to the approved Plat, "For the purpose of this Plat, Parcel D is reserved for future development by Declarant. Parcel D may be withdrawn from the Chamonix Vail Common Interest Community by Declarant as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chamonix Vail Community." This minor subdivision, through the inclusion of a small portion of Parcel A, does not violate, or in anyway frustrate, the intended purpose of Parcel D, as set forth in the approved Community Plat. In fact, in many ways, it only improves and further enhances the original development objectives for Parcel D. • Town of Vail Zoning Regulations — The Zoning Regulations have been enacted for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. The proposed minor subdivision advances the general purpose of the Zoning Regulations and helps to sustain the Town's character as a resort community of the highest quality. This will be further achieved as any future development application shall be required to demonstrate continued compliance with the adopted Zoning Regulations. • 2018 Town of Vail Housing Policy Statements - In July of 2018, the Vail Town Council adopted its first housing policy statements. According to Resolution No. 30, Series of 2018, "through the adoption of housing policy statements, it is the Vail Town Council's intent to articulate the approaches the Town will take to realize its vision, achieves its housing goal, and address the most critical issue — housing —facing the Vail community." This minor subdivision is consistent with the following housing policy statements adopted by the Vail Town Council: o #1 Housing IS infrastructure o #2 Housing Partners o #3 Private Sector Importance o #5 Breakdown Barriers o #6 Funding Creates Deed -Restrictions o #10 Funding is Policy 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and The proposed subdivision complies with the standards prescribed within the Vail Town Code, including Title 12, "Zoning Regulations". The proposed minor subdivision is simply a 7 resubdivision of already subdivided and developable land that is already lawfully platted with associated development rights. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed minor subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among surrounding land uses consistent with Vail's development objectives. Historically, the Town of Vail has articulated its development objectives as the specific purposes contained within Section 12-1-2 (B) of the Vail Town Code. To that end, in part, the proposed minor subdivision provides for adequate light, air, sanitation and drainage given the resulting infill development; promotes safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation given its adjacency to Chamonix Lane; conserves and maintains established community qualities and economic values as the property is already developable and any resulting development must comply with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards; and does not create excessive population densities or overcrowding. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and The proposed minor subdivision will result in positive impacts on the surrounding area. The two properties are platted and zoned for development. If it were not for the exponential cost of developing on Parcel D, it would have been developed with residential uses and structures in conjunction with the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. As a result of the plat covenant and the Approved Development Plan requirements, future development on the site is limited to low density residential structures designed in compliance with the Town's adopted design review guidelines and standards. In sum, the structure built on the site will be used similarly to other structures existing in the residential neighborhood and be designed in a similar context, consistent with the adopted design guidelines and standards. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and The proposed minor subdivision is located and designed in such a manner that avoids creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities. The area surrounding the proposed minor subdivision is fully developed and properly served by existing public utilities and services. Given the infill development nature of this application, a "leapfrog" pattern of development is avoided. Infill development is a proven means of adding density within an existing neighborhood with no adverse impacts on community character within the area. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and The utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area and avoid future land disruption to otherwise upgrade undersized lines. As a result of the proposed minor subdivision, a maximum of four dwellings units could be constructed on the combined area of future Parcel E. Utility providers have previously confirmed the adequacy of the size of the lines and services to accommodate the likely increase in population resulting from a total of four new dwelling units. In fact, an existing water line was looped in the neighborhood during the infrastructure installation at Chamonix Vail to better accommodate development in the area. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The proposed minor subdivision promotes the growth of an orderly, viable community and serves the best interest of the community as a whole. Town of Vail taxpayer monies were used to acquire the Chamonix Vail property. Parcel D is a developable portion of the site. As a result of this minor subdivision approval, the Town intends to sell the vacant land for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Net proceeds from the sale of future Parcel E will help to reduce the taxpayer subsidy provided in the original purchase, and subsequent development, of the property. Further, this minor subdivision creates an opportunity for infill development. Infill development is often a preferred means of growth of a community as it takes advantage of existing services and infrastructure without expanding the community boundaries to accommodate growth. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The proposed minor subdivision results in beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including vegetation, undeveloped hillsides, wildlife and other desirable natural features. Given the infill nature of future Parcel E, and the land disturbance already existing from the installation of public utilities and the construction of Chamonix Lane, one additional built structure within an already existing built -out neighborhood is not detrimental to the natural environment. In fact, it could be argued that accommodating infill development has less of a negative impact on the natural environment than greenfield development achieved through expansion of the Town's municipal boundary. An alternative to infill development would be to accommodate growth and expansion on undeveloped areas surrounding the boundaries of the community. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. C. Zone District Boundary Amendment: Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outline in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. As proposed, the amendment increases the amount of land area in the Town of Vail designated for deed -restricted housing, yet maintains the availability of town -owned facilities most often associated with development in the General Use District. Arguably, this amendment is not only compatible with the development objectives of the Town, but it advances the Town's development objectives by increasing opportunities for desirable outcomes that may not exist otherwise. This amendment furthers the Town's housing goals and advances the Vail Town Council critical actions, as identified in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018-2020. (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and The zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site as well as the existing and potential surrounding land uses. As proposed, a 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is being added to future Parcel E in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. This amendment ensures that zone district designation of future Parcel E is consistent with existing Parcel D. Parcel D, as zoned, provides for both free-market and resident -occupied, deed -restricted residential uses. Since the development potential of future Parcel E is based upon approval of an Approved Development Plan, and not a proportional percentage of the lot area, this additional land area does not proportionally impact the size of any future structure, or increase the intensity of the future uses on site. The additional square feet of land area to be zoned into the Housing District does not negatively impact existing and potential surrounding land uses. (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and The zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses which are consistent the Town's development objectives. For instance, when this portion of Parcel A is rezoned to the Housing District, it increases the constructability of development on future Parcel E, given the recta -linear configuration of the site. Moreover, the change in zoning increases the marketability of the property, thereby increasing the economic incentive granted by the Zoning Regulations to support resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes within the community. In many ways, this application achieves and supports exactly what is intended by the Town's development objectives. 10 (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and The zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning. The requested change from the General Use District to the Housing District allows the entire site to be zoned consistent with the Town's development objectives and further supports the Town's goal of acquiring 1,000 new resident -occupied, deed - restrictions by the year 2027. According to the 2018 Housing Policy Statements adopted by the Vail Town Council, "Housing IS Infrastructure" and infrastructure is the support system of a whole community. Further, it is unclear how a claim of "spot zoning" could apply to this application, and therefore, irrelevant and does not pertain. (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and The zone district amendment has no negative impacts on the natural environment. As presently zoned, both the General Use District and the Housing District grant certain development rights. One would be hard pressed to characterize future Parcel E as critical habitat or ecologically sensitive for natural environment purposes. This application supports infill development. (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and The zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the Housing District. According to Section 12-61-1, in part, the purpose of the District is, "intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing..." As proposed and covenanted, future development on the site is limited to three free-market homes and one, resident -occupied, deed -restricted home. This use is clearly consistent with the purpose provisions of the Housing District. (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and The zone district amendment is supported by demonstrated changes in conditions which are no longer appropriate or relevant. The entire Chamonix Property was purchased by the Town for an intended purpose. Parcel A was acquired by the Town of Vail to construct a fire station in West Vail. To do so, Parcel A was platted and zoned to the General Use District. As a result, the fire station has been completed as planned. The 5,291 square foot portion of Parcel A is no longer needed to accomplish the development objective and may not have been included in the original plat had it been known at the time. 11 Further, Parcel B and Parcel C were created to support the development of resident -occupied, deed -restricted homes. The new Chamonix Vail Neighborhood was completed on the combined area of Parcels. Parcel D was subsequently created to accommodate future residential development. The inclusion of a portion of Parcel A, through a minor subdivision, supports that purpose. Changing the zoning to the Housing District achieves the Town's development objective for future development on Parcel E without negatively impacting the current or future use of Parcel A. (8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed rezoning. D. Conditional Use Permit: Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Free-market (non -deed -restricted) homes are an allowed use in the Housing District provided their sole purpose is to subsidize resident -occupied, deed -restricted housing on the property. Upon approval of the five development applications, the Town of Vail intends to sell Parcel E, with covenants, for free-market and deed -restricted residential development. Arguably, the relationship and impacts of free-market development are no different than deed -restricted development. The only difference is who is permitted to occupy the home. Residential uses are permitted on the site today. This application does not change the uses on the site. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, etc. Again, residential development is permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The conditional use permit will have no negative effects upon traffic. Future development on the site shall be designed to comply with the Town's adopted standards for development. Again, residential development is already permitted on the site today. This application does not result in any negative impacts simply because of who is permitted to occupy the homes. For 12 example, residents of deed -restricted homes do not have any greater or lesser impact on removal of snow than residents of free-market homes. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The conditional use permit will not have a negative effect upon the character of the area, including scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding area. As contemplated, and prescribed by the development standards proposed for Parcel E, the new residential structure will be similar in scale and bulk to similar residential structures in the immediate vicinity. For example, by covenant and development approval, the new residences will be a maximum of 7,200 sq. ft., respectively with a maximum building height of 44 feet. According to Eagle County Assessor's information, existing multiple -family homes in the immediate vary greatly in size, with the most adjacent homes being approximately 7,200 square in size and 44 feet in height or less. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and A total of four dwelling units are proposed on future Parcel E. Three of the dwelling units are non -deed -restricted and one is deed -restricted. The Vail Town Council intends to sell future Parcel E upon approval of the minor subdivision, zone district amendment, conditional use permit, and amendment to the approved development plan. Net proceeds from the sale will be used to reimburse the Town's housing fund for a portion of the nearly $4M subsidy provided to facilitate the development of the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and A total of three, non -deed restricted dwelling units are proposed. Upon approval, 36 homes total will be provided within the Chamonix Vail Neighborhood; only three if which are not deed - restricted. As such, approximately 8% of the total number of dwelling units are free market. Furthermore, pursuant to the Approved Development Plan (PEC15-0019), "up to 40,000 square feet" of GRFA is allowed on Parcel B and Parcel C. A total of 7,200 square feet, or only 18%, of 13 free-market GRFA is proposed on future Parcel E. The Zoning Regulations would allow an additional 4,500 square feet, or 11.25%, of GRFA C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and The three non -deed -restricted dwelling units may only be constructed on future Parcel E, provided the one, deed -restricted dwelling unit is 1) either already completed and obtained a certificate of occupancy, or 2) is being constructed simultaneously with the non -deed -restricted units and obtained a certificate. Either way, the deed -restricted dwelling unit is provided in conjunction with the non -deed -restricted dwelling units. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. The three, non -deed -restricted dwelling units are compatible with the site and the buildings and uses on adjacent properties. In fact, in many ways, the proposed development enhances the transition of the site from larger -sized multiple family buildings to smaller -scaled residences to the west and north of the development site. Variance Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant's request is approval of a variance to construct a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU on future Parcel E. According to the Vail Town Code, structures can be built on slopes of 40% or greater without a variance. Multiple -family structures have been permitted on slopes of 40% or greater elsewhere in Town, subject to prescribed development standards (i.e. density control, setbacks, building height, site coverage, off-street parking, etc.) without any negative impacts to existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, it is reasonable to infer that the same will be true on the future Parcel E housing site. Examples of which include Middle Creek Village Apartments, Solar Vail Apartments and the Chalets at Mountain Plaza. These were all completed without resulting in negative impacts to the immediate or surrounding areas. A slope stability report was completed by the consulting geotechnical engineers with Ceasare, Inc. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the feasibility of developing a multiple -family structure on the site given the existing slope conditions and the presence of a two-tiered retaining wall immediately adjacent to the south. In analyzing the site and completing the report, the consulting engineers relied upon actual "as -built" conditions to make their findings. The conclusions of the report found that the site was suitable for development provided any future structure has a setback of 25' from the southerly property. Additional analysis is recommended, though not required, by the engineers at the time of design review application submittal. As a result, the future multiple -family residential structure use of the site may undergo additional review 14 to further verify compatibility with the existing uses in the vicinity in the immediate vicinity of the site. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The variance request is to allow a multiple -family structure with an attached EHU to be constructed on a site in the Housing zone district with slopes 40% or greater. The degree of relief requested from this provision of the Vail Town Code is the minimum amount needed to achieve uniformity of treatment among sites in the district without a grant of special privilege. The presence of the 40% or greater slope condition is the result of several factors. First, the natural topography of the area results in some areas having slopes 40% or greater. Second, the construction of Chamonix Lane and the sluffing of road grade materials down the slope exacerbate the steepness of slope conditions of the site. This road sluffing condition is prevalent outside the platted Chamonix Lane right-of-way. The inconvenient truth of the Town's housing shortage is that greater attention was granted to free- market development in the early days of Vail than was granted to addressing the need for deed - restricted housing. As a result, the more easily developed sites, ones which had no physical hardships or faced any practical difficulties, thereby requiring no variances to develop, were quickly gobbled up and already built upon. In the end, many of the properties now zoned to the Housing district are what is leftover and in the least ideal locations from a development site suitability standpoint. These properties, for example, are negatively impacted by practical difficulties such as challenging access, marginal soils, steep slopes, floodplains and wetlands, geologic hazards, and other similar difficulties. To verify this point one simply needs to look to other Housing district sites to appreciate the resulting difficulties first hand. Timber Ridge Village Apartments were faced with steep slopes and high severity rockfall conditions which caused the need for variances to construct 15 -foot tall retaining walls. Similarly, the Lionsridge Apartments too were faced with naturally occurring steep slopes, road sluffing conditions, and moderate severity rockfall conditions that created the need for substantial rockfall mitigation and retaining walls over 20 -feet in height. The Solar Vail Apartments were impacted by greater than 40% slope conditions requiring the need for variances. Further, the Middle Creek Village Apartments were constrained by both steep slopes and the Middle Creek drainage floodplain, and, the Arosa Duplex was negatively impacted by a debris flow hazard limiting its development potential to something less than otherwise permitted by zoning. The Chamonix Vail Parcel E falls into the same category of practical difficulties as similar Housing zoned developments. To ensure compatibility of future development on the site a companion development plan application has been provided. The companion plan ensures the appropriateness of development with many of the development standards consistent with the Housing zone district. As a result, a multiple -family structure is permitted with the grant of a variance on slopes 40% or greater; any future development on Parcel E will achieve compatibility, consistency and uniformity with the development objectives of the Town Code without a grant of special privilege. 15 None of the practical difficulties or physical hardships described upon are the cause of any actions taken by the applicant. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no negative impact or effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This portion of the Chamonix Vail Community has been intended for development since its original platting and, in fact, could have supported increased density and populations. Moreover, some community members have suggested that significantly more density should have been developed on the site, including within the area of future Parcel E. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The availability of affordable housing remains the #1 most critical issue facing the Vail community. This issue has been at the forefront of community issues as far back as the adoption of the 1973 Vail Plan. At that time, the community identified three critical issues facing the future success of the community. They included: 1) Loading and delivery 2) Parking 3) Seasonal Housing It should not be inferred that little, or nothing, has been done to address the housing needs of the resort community. It is quite the opposite. A significant amount of action has taken place over the past 45 -plus years. Today, the Vail community has acquired an ownership interest in more than 815 deed -restricted homes. The reality, however, is that even with more than 875 deed -restricted homes; the demand for housing still far exceeds both the current and projected supply. Most recent figures provided by the 2018 Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solutions Report indicates there will be a shortfall of approximately 4,030 homes with the Eagle River Valley in the year 2020. While the approval of this application results in only one additional deed -restricted home, overall, it further supports the future creation of additional housing through the utilization of nearly one-half acre of already platted and otherwise developable land area in the Town of Vail. Amendment to an Approved Development Plan: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. W. The proposed amendment to the approved development plan focuses on the development standards and land use regulations. Considerations such as architecture, character, scale, massing, etc. are intended to be addressed during the design review process by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. To that end, to ensure these considerations are addressed consistently, the Town's adopted design standards and guidelines shall apply. Please see the Amended Approved Development Plan (Phase 1 and 2) for all required information concerning the Development Plan. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. See Criteria A. above. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. See Criteria A. above. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. See Criteria A. above. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. An environmental impact report is not required by Chapter 12 of the Vail Town Code, and therefore, waived by the Administrator. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. See Section III A (A)(1) of this memorandum above. 17 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E, a resubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0032) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of an Amended Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for amendments to the Chamonix Vail Community Development Plan, Parcel B and a northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0035) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at located at 2310 and 2420 Chamonix Lane, Parcel B and a northern portion of Parcel A, formerly a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. land setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0034) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Staff Memo PEC19-0017.pdf PEC19-0017 Staff Memo Definitions-0073119.pdf [Attachment A] Ordinance Definitions Retaining Walls-0080119.pdf [Attachment B] Ordinance Retaining Walls 0. )rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend definitions in Title 12 and Title 14 to remove redundant definitions and clarify the code. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for amendments to Sections 12-2-2, 14-2-1, and 14-10-8, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of redundant definitions and update of definitions outlined below. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Sections of Title 12 and Title 14 of the Vail Town Code are amended as follows (italicized indicates new language and c+riUo+hrni inh indicates language to be removed): 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not otherwise defined herein shall be given their usual and customary meanings, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. ADMINISTRATOR: The ad-minictrater of the donor+mon+ of nnmmi inity d8V8lnnm8n+ Director of Community Development or i„� designee. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or multiple - family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • • The bedy respeRsible -zoning ordinance, master p!ans, --bd,.,-,-.. regu!ations, .....—menta! concerns, etc., The Commission established by Title 3, Chapter 2 of this Code. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- An Advisory Master Plan for the development of the • The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendiumof planning documents that are updated, amended and adopted by the Town Council.•• of - current Comprehensive • 1- kept by the Community Development Depa- 1 available for inspection during business hours. The Vail QernpreheRsive Pl;;p will PENN!�_• P M -F■ . - 1 I j 1 Will 14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS: A. General: 1. All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography ofaPA-the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to access to or development of a structure on excessive slopes (in excess of 30 percent). Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right of way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt Town of Vail Page 2 from these height limits, but must be approved by the Design Review Board and shall meet the standards prescribed in Section 14-10-3 of this Code. 2. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two feet (2') from adjacent private property boundaries and should be ten feet (10') from the edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by the town engineer. 3. All retaining walls over four feet (4') in height, measured from the bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted town of Vail building code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado professional engineer (PE stamp) except in the right of way, where retaining walls over three feet (3') in height, measured in the same manner, shall require a PE stamp. 4. All retaining walls requiring a PE stamp shall be required to have submitted and approved, prior to building permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as required by the town engineer. At a minimum, unless otherwise directed, the engineering submittal shall include PE stamped plans, and PE stamped typical details with all engineering design parameters and calculated factor of safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced. Section 14-2-1 of the Vail Town Code is amended by the deletion of the following definitions: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB); DEVELOPMENT; DWELLING, MULTIPLE -FAMILY; DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY; DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY; DWELLING UNIT, EHU; LOT OR SITE; PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC); SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA; SETBACK; SETBACK AREA; SETBACK LINE; SETBACK LINE, FRONT; SETBACK LINE, REAR; SETBACK LINE, SIDE; SITE COVERAGE; and SLOPE. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their Town of Vail Page 3 review. The Design Review Board (DRB) has no formal review over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. Town of Vail Page 4 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed regulation amendment does not have identifiable environmental impacts. VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality" This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code by removing repeated definitions and provided one clear definition for words used in the code. This added clarity will help to improve customer service as residents will be able to more easily navigate through the code and staff will be more effective in finding relevant sections applying them and answering questions about them. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Town of Vail Page 5 The proposed text amendment will provide the community, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The text amendment largely simplifies the existing regulation and adds clarity. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing consistency and removing redundancy in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval Town of Vail Page 6 to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the September 9, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Title 12 Definitions Draft Ordinance B. Title 14 Retaining Walls Draft Ordinance Town of Vail Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 2019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-2 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO CLARIFY CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, AND AMENDING SECTION 14-2-1 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO DELETE DUPLICATIVE DEFINITIONS WHEREAS, several definitions in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code are outdated and in need of clarification or deletion; WHEREAS, Section 14-2-1 of the Vail Town Code includes definitions that are already located in other sections of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, on August 26, 2019, the Planning and Environmental Commission considered the changes proposed by this Ordinance and recommended that the Town Council approve such changes; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the clarification of definitions and the deletion of duplicative definitions is necessary to avoid ambiguity in the Vail Town Code. NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The following definitions in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code are hereby amended as follows (italicized indicates new language and S;tr;Lo+hre i. h indicates language to be removed): When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not otherwise defined herein shall be given their usual and customary meanings, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. ADMINISTRATOR: The ^P1 xi s r Ate- Director of Community Development or designee. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two- family or multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. 'LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • • 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX e-tc ;-;Ad-as established by, The Commission established by Title 3, Chapter 2 of this Code. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: An Advisory Master Plan for the development of the Town e#Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendium of planning documents that are updated, amended and adopted by the Town Council. A copy of the current Comprehensive plan shall be kept by the Community Development Department and available for inspection during business hours. The Vail i`nmprehenoi.,e D1an io the- GGFRpilatiep of Pumr lanning dE)G imeRt6thr-F nli de the '/a01 Village urban rlesigng6�8IM q_./\/oil \/illage design nnncirlera+inns (adopted lune 11 11,, 1r9980,�Taveoani ions 15, 1993) Cord Dort IDA-Reyan Dort M;;gtt Plan (adepted August 985), Land Use Dian (adepted evernbeF 18, 11_986\ Vail \/iIIago Master DI. -n (adnpte Iasi lard 16, 1990), StFeofo�c .aster Plan (adept I ever hee`�9Q1), Troncnnrt;_;ti n rn--rvTa6tt9p cPlP;;A (adapted jaani lard 1993)gni ininipaI Gemoter`cry vTasteF nlFaaR (adopted Der --ember 7, 1993), GempreheRsive Opep♦ (adepted 1994), eQAy.rnnmental strategin plan (adopted 1994) Cord Dort management plan (aadeppt,.,d Appil14�9Q7), pcheQad_ Redey pmen�aatter plarpr (adeppted Der-,em998), apd a.Ft ip P611910G pI neG strutegiG plan (adopted-Neven}ber 1 2001). Section 2. Section 14-2-1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the deletion of the following definitions: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB); DEVELOPMENT; DWELLING; MULTIPLE -FAMILY; DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY; DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY; DWELLING UNIT; EHU; LOT OR SITE; PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC); SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA; SETBACK; SETBACK AREA; SETBACK LINE; SETBACK LINE, FRONT; SETBACK LINE, REAR; SETBACK LINE, SIDE; SITE COVERAGE; and SLOPE. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This 2 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2019 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day of 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2019. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk 3 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 2019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14-6-7.A. OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO CLARIFY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RETAINING WALLS WHEREAS, Section 14-6-7.A. of the Vail Town Code establishes design standards for retaining walls and is in need of clarification; WHEREAS, on August 26, 2019, the Planning and Environmental Commission considered the changes proposed by this ordinance and recommended that the Town Council approve such changes; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the clarification of Section 14-6-7.A. is necessary to avoid ambiguity in the Vail Town Code. NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 14-6.7.A. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows (italicized indicates new language and strikethre nh indicates language to be removed): 14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS: A. General: 1. All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography of a446 the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to access to or development of a structure on excessive slopes (in excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right-of-way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the Design Review Board and shall meet the standards prescribed in Section 14-10-3 of this Code. 2. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two feet (2') from adjacent private property boundaries and should be ten feet (10') from the edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. 3. All retaining walls over four feet (4') in height, measured from the bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted TeyVp of V_' building code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado professional engineer (PE stamp) except in the right of way, where 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-261RETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX retaining walls over three feet (3') in height, measured in the same manner, shall require a PE stamp. 4. All retaining walls requiring a PE stamp shall be required to have submitted and approved, prior to building permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. At a minimum, unless otherwise directed, the engineering submittal shall include PE stamped plans, and PE stamped typical details with all engineering design parameters and calculated factor of safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 4. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of 2019 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day of 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk 2 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-MRETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of )2019. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk 3 8/22/2019 IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-MRETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: September 9, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0035 WUI Code Staff Memo.pdf A Fire Memo PEC V\/LII Code Adoption 090319 FINAL.pdf B Title 12 Chapter 11 Desiqn Review DRAFT.pdf C Title 12 Chapter 21 DRAFT.Ddf D Title 14 Chapter 2 Proposed New Definition.pdf E Title 14 Chapter 10 DRAFT.pdf F Buildinq Code WUI Integreation to ORD 2019.pdf G Buildinq Code Definitions.pdf H Fire -Resistant Landscapinq Guidelines.pdf I Plant Recommend Brochure.Ddf Description PEC18-0035 - Staff Memo Attachment A - Applicant Narrative / Fire Department Memo Attachment B - Proposed Text Amendmnets - Title 12, Chapter 11 Attachment C - Proposed Text Amendments - Title 12, Chapter 21 Attachment D - Proposed Text Amendments - Title 14, Chapter 2 Attachment E - Proposed Text Amendments - Title 14, Chapter 10 Attachment F - Proposed Amendments to the International Building Code Attachment G - Definitions - 2018 International Residential Code Attachment H - Fire Resistant Landscaping Guidelines Attachment I - Plant Recommendations Brochure 0) rnwN ofvain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager, requests the review of a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, relating to building design and landscaping in order to reduce the risk of wildfire. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. The following attachments are available for review: • Attachment A - Applicant's Narrative / Fire Department Memo • Attachment B, C, D and E - Proposed Text Amendments • Attachment F - Amendments to the International Building Code • Attachment G - Definitions from the 2018 International Residential Code • Attachment H - Fire Resistant Landscaping Guidelines • Attachment I - Plant Recommendations Brochure II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend the Vail Town Code to implement new regulations on building design and landscaping to reduce the risk of wildfire. These regulations would include changes to permitted exterior building materials, changes to landscaping design requirements, and new requirements for the creation of defensible space. The proposed regulations would apply anywhere within the Town of Vail for new construction and additions in excess of 500 square feet. III. BACKGROUND The International Wildland Urban Interface Code was presented to the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board at seven meetings during 2018 and 2019. After significant discussions with the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board, the Board recommended a change in approach. Rather than adopting the International Wildland Urban Interface Code in its entirety, the Board recommended a simplified approach whereby our existing regulations would be amended, rather than adopting a new code book. Staff presented the proposed text amendments to the Design Review Board on two occasions to gain feedback on the proposed language. On August 7, 2019 the Design Review Board voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the proposed text amendments, with the condition that language be added to Section 14-10-5-133b, Vail Town Code, directing users to the Town's adopted building code for a definition of combustible siding. On August 26, 2019 the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this application and requested additional information. As requested, the definitions from the Residential Building Code on "Combustible Material" and "Noncombustible Material" have been attached for you review. In addition, staff has attached the current Fire Resistant Landscaping guidelines and the updated Plant Recommendations guide for the PEC's reference. Additionally, the proposed amendments to Title 10, Building Regulations (which do not require review by the PEC) are attached. No changes are proposed to Title 12 or Title 14 from the versions presented on August 26, 2019. IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Prescribed Regulation Amendments proposed may be found in Attachment B - D. The proposed changes are centered on three main concepts: Identifying the entire Town of Vail as being within a wildfire hazard zone, and at risk from the spread of wildfires. Town of Vail Page 2 2. Requiring all new structures and major additions (over 500 square feet) within the Town to be constructed in a manner to resist ignition from wildfire flames and embers through ignition resistant construction design. 3. Requiring all new landscaping within the Town to use fire resistant design and defensible space. V. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. The Design Review Board may be consulted on text amendments relating to design, and may make a recommendation to the Town Council. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan, and are relevant to the review of this proposal: Town of Vail Page 3 Vail 2020 Strategic Action Plan Environmental Sustainability Goal #3: Ecosystem: Improve the health and diversity of the forest and mountain ecosystem while recognizing the interdependence of the wildland urban interface (WUI) corridor within Vail. Actions/Strategies • Research potential code amendments to further protect homes from wildland fires. 2018 Open Lands Plan Update Chapter 3 - Wildfire and Safety Considerations The Vail Fire & Emergency Services is involved in ongoing efforts to manage vegetation to minimize the potential threat of wildfire in and around Vail. Wildfires do not recognize Town or property boundaries and the Department's mitigation efforts are not limited to Town owned lands. That said, any decisions regarding management of the Town's open lands should be coordinated with the Department's wildfire mitigation efforts. Any new recreation trails, whether located on Town land or on USFS lands, should also involve coordination with Vail Fire and Emergency Services. Considerations to be addressed include emergency provider access to trails and mitigation of hazards that may be presented by standing -dead lodgepole located proximate to any new trails. Vail Town Code Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. Town of Vail Page 4 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. (Ord. 8(19 73) § 1.100) 12-3-7: AMENDMENT: A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter. B. Initiation.- 1. nitiation:1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the administrator. Town of Vail Page 5 C. Criteria And Findings: 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable, and (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives, and (5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the planning and environmental commission and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and (2) That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and (3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Town of Vail Page 6 2018 Residential Building Code Combustible Material: Any material not defined as noncombustible. Noncombustible Material: Materials that pass the test procedure for defining noncombustibility of elementary materials set forth in ASTM E136. VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations by helping to secure the community from fire danger and by reducing the risks of wildfires. The proposed changes will require building materials and landscaping designs that help reduce the spread of fire through use of ignition resistant materials, separation of structures from landscaping, and defensible space. These regulations are designed to require compliance for new construction, but also to provide exemptions for small additions of less than 500 square feet of gross floor area, and repairs of less than 25% of a deck surface area or deck structure. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff finds that the proposed prescribed regulations amendments will better implement or achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Vail 2020 Strategic Action Plan and the 2018 Open Lands Plan Update support efforts to reduce the risks of wildfires. Additionally, the Town is currently working on a Community Wildfire Protection Plan to help the Town of Vail incorporate Fire Adapted Community recommendations into community design and maintenance, and to help the community take the next step in wildfire preparedness. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Town of Vail Page 7 Conditions have changed since the adoption of the current regulations. Climate change has caused Colorado's average temperature to rise by two degrees Fahrenheit in the past 30 years'. Projections indicate that the state's average temperature could be five degrees higher by 2050". Rising temperatures result in drier forest conditions and heightened wildfire probability. As a result, additional measures are needed in the Town of Vail to plan for, and attempt to reduce, the risk of wildfires. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff finds that this text amendment will ensure a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. The proposed text amendments would apply to new construction, and to additions of 500 square feet or larger of gross floor area. A definition of gross floor area is proposed with these amendments. Over time, these regulations will make the community safer from the risks of wildfires, and will help to reduce the spread of fires. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Community Development has not identified any significant negative environmental impacts with the proposed text amendment. While the proposed changes may result in less overall landscaping close to structures, and may require separation of trees to prevent fire jumping, these code amendments may have a positive effect on the environment by reducing the risk of wildfire. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text Town of Vail Page 8 amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, concerning regulations on building design and landscaping to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0035) " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, -and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Narrative/Memo B. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 12, Chapter 11 C. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 12, Chapter 21 D. Proposed Text Amendment, Title 14, Chapter 2 E. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 14, Chapter 10 F. Proposed Amendments to the International Building Code G. Definitions — 2018 International Residential Code H. Fire Resistant Landscaping Guidelines I. Plant Recommendations Brochure Town of Vail Page 9 Lukas, Jeff, et. al. (August 2014). "Climate Change in Colorado." Pg. 2. Available at: http://cwcbweblink.state.co.usNVebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=191995&searchid=e3c463e8-569c- 4359-8ddd-ed50e755d3b7&dbid=0 Coupled Modeling Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) Projections. Available at: http://cmip- pcmdi.11nl.gov/cmip5/ Town of Vail Page 10 ATTACHMENT A TOWN 0 FVA! L Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Paul Cada, Wildland Program Administrator Date: September 3, 2019 Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Building and Design Standards to incorporate ignition resistant materials and methods Background At the time of the establishment of Vail as a community in the early 1960's, wildfire was not a particularly destructive force in the Colorado Rockies. Wildfires were relatively rare and seldom caused property damage or the loss of homes. Since that time the fire environment has changed drastically. This change is due to many factors including increased fuel loads, deteriorating forest health and increased development and human activity in the wildlands which have brought fire and communities much closer. Over the last 20 years wildfires have continued to grow larger, harder to control and more impactful on communities. All 20 of the 20 largest wildfires in Colorado history have burned since the start of the new millennia with 7 of the 10 largest in the last 10 years. Not only are fires getting bigger but they are also having bigger impacts on communities. Colorado ranks second in the nation in terms of exposure to wildfire damage. Thousands of homes in Colorado have been lost to wildfire since 2000 and many communities are now dealing with the post fire flooding and water quality issues that may last for years. Over the past 16 years, the Town of Vail and Eagle County have acknowledged the potential threat that wildfire presents to the safety, health and vitality of the community. In addition, there is a growing recognition that catastrophic wildfire is a significant threat to the environment and specifically to Gore Creek. Mitigating the impacts of wildfire is also a key environmental sustainability strategy, as the impacts of wildfires upon communities across the west have dramatically increased over the last two decades. Concurrent with the growth of the fire problem in the Wildland Urban Interface has been the evolution of the body of knowledge regarding wildland fires and structural ignitability. The proposed code amendments are informed by this science, which has created an understanding of the role of embers in igniting buildings. Due to the ability of embers to travel up to a mile ahead of a fire, we now know that all buildings in the Town of Vail are at risk of being impacted by a wildland fire. To address the threat of wildland fire, Eagle County adopted wildfire specific building regulations in 2003. These building regulations have been directly attributed to structural survivability during the 2018 Lake Christine Fire. In 2016 the Town of Vail amended several sections of its code and adopted new design guidelines as an initial step to address the wildland fire threat within the Town of Vail; the primary impact of this was the implementation of an advisory landscape plan review to determine compliance with ignition resistant guidelines. In the summer of 2018 staff identified the need to address structural ignitability and landscape design in all new construction. II. Current Situation It has become well accepted by the community that Vail is located within an ecosystem that is prone to and even depends on wildfire to maintain healthy ecological function. It is not a matter of if, but when, a large wildfire will occur in or near the community. Like the natural environment we all enjoy, the town must adapt to living with wildfire. In 2015 Town Council was presented with the concept of creating a "Fire Adapted Community" within Vail. The strategic plan of "Fire Adapted Vail" includes the three pillars of the national cohesive strategy: Resilient Landscapes Fire Adapted Communities Rapid and Effective Response. These have been developed into several highly effective and well received programs within the town including: large scale fuels reduction projects, community slash removal, town wide home hazard evaluations, evacuation preparedness and significant improvements in wildfire emergency response. This multi -pronged approach when paired with improved building practices will set the community on a trajectory for greater resiliency to a wildfire event. Vail Fire and Emergency Services have been working with staff from Community Development over the past 12 months to develop proposed amendments to the Town Code to incorporate wildfire mitigation best practices. This has included 7 meetings with Board of Appeals, 3 meetings with Design Review Board and collaboration with staff from the building, environmental and planning departments. On August 26th 2019, Vail Fire and Community Development presented the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with the most recent versions of the proposed code amendments. After a brief discussion several members of PEC had questions or concerns regarding the potential impacts of the proposed code amendments on the building materials and landscaping changes. PEC requested additional information in regards to both subjects. Some specific questions that were posed for further clarification: What types of projects would these changes affect? a. These code amendments would apply to new construction and additions of 500 square feet or more of gross floor area. Town of Vail Page 2 2. What building materials would be allowed under the new code revision? a. The proposed code amendments would require the use of ignition resistant and non- combustible materials cover the majority of the building. The technical definitions of ignition resistant and non-combustible materials are housed in the proposed amendments to the International Residential Code and International Building Code (Title 10 Attachment). These amendments were carefully crafted with significant input from the Building and Fire Codes Appeals Board and the building department to ensure that current building practices could continue. Significant effort was expended to ensure that all possible options were allowed. The inclusion of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code allows for substantially more allowable building materials as well as an extensive testing and listing database maintained by the state of California. Examples of materials meeting these codes can be found at- http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/licensinglistings/licenselisting bml searchcotest 3. How would landscaping change under the proposed amendments? a. Under the proposed amendments new construction or significant additions would have to design and install landscaping that would resist the spread of wildfire within 100 feet from the building, or the lot lines, whichever is less. To aid applicants with design ideas Vail Fire developed the Fire Resistant Landscape Guide and the newly drafted plant selection guide (both attached). During the design phase the landscape plan will be evaluated by a wildfire expert from Vail Fire for compliance with the code. If revisions are required they can be made prior to DRB approval. This approach allows maximum flexibility for the applicant to design landscaping that fits the site and specific needs of the development without creating cookie cutter designs. The results of this collaboration are code changes that are consistent with existing building practices and aesthetic standards, as well as an approach to landscaping that will maintain the character of Vail while decreasing the need for water and pesticides, resulting in a more sustainable community. This collaboration has also informed a revision of the Vail Fire Resistant Landscaping Guide that provides guidance on creating landscapes that are aesthetically pleasing, consistent with best practices to protect Gore Creek and reduce the risk of a wildfire igniting homes within our community. The 2018 version of the ICC International Wildland Urban Interface code was used as a model and modifications were made to incorporate lessons learned from other jurisdictions that have adopted similar codes. The intention of the code amendments is to reduce the potential impacts of wildfire upon our community while maintaining the character of the community. In the development of the proposed code amendments, Vail Fire finds: 1. Adopting these code amendments will substantially reduce the potential for catastrophic loss of property due to wildfire, providing for an overall safer community. Town of Vail Page 3 2. These code amendments are consistent with current building and landscaping practices within the Town and surrounding unincorporated Eagle County. a. Code amendments as proposed will codify current design and building practices prescribed in the current design guidelines. 3. Adoption of these code amendments will not cause substantial added time or expense to the development of a property. a. The proposed code amendments will only apply to new construction and additions of 500 square feet gross floor area or greater. b. A substantial number of products, including many currently in use within the Town, are available to meet the various requirements of the code. c. Local builders are required to meet many of the same requirements when completing projects in unincorporated Eagle County to comply with the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Codes. 4. The code has been amended to address the unique building and environmental challenges of the area. 5. The proposed changes support the Town of Vail Council Action Plan Priority to "Institute measures to best mitigate wildfire danger". 6. Results of the 2016 and 2018 community survey show that more than 85% of respondents support design standards that facilitate the creation of defensible space and increasing community safety. a. Support increased from 80% to 85% from 2016 to 2018 The code amendments provide substantial choices in building material and design to meet the current Town design guidelines. The use of ignition resistant building materials is currently strongly encouraged in the design guidelines and most projects currently underway within the Town are complying with the proposed code amendments. The most substantial change from the Town's current practices and the proposed adoption of the code would be the need to inspect landscape installations to ensure that they are installed as designed. III. Staff Recommendation Review the amendments to Title 12 and Title 14 and provide a recommendation for adoption to Town Council. Town of Vail Page 4 ATTACHMENT B Chapter 11 DESIGN REVIEW o 12-11-1: PURPOSE: 12-11-2: DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION: 12-11-3: DESIGN APPROVAL: 12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE: 12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES: 12-11-6: PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES: 12-11-7: DESIGN REVIEW FEE: 12-11-8: PERFORMANCE BOND: 12-11-9: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES (REP. BY ORD. 2(2003) 41): 12-11-10: APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL (REP. BY ORD. 2(2003) 41): 12-11-11: ENFORCEMENT; INSPECTION: 12-11-12: LAPSE OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL: 12-11-1: PURPOSEEtE7 A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming permanent residents participating in community life. B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the town council has created a design review board (DRB) and design criteria. C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: 1. Recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors. 2. Allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. Prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. Ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. Protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 6. Balance the design and aesthetic desires of the community and the economy of Vail as an international resort destination with the need to protect the community from the risk of wildland fire. 12-11-2: DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:= A. Basis For Meanings: Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions contained in section 12-2-2 of this title, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review board for final determination. B. Mandatory, Discretionary Distinction: The distinction made between those items contained within this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word "shall", and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words "should" or "may". In all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-3: DESIGN APPROVAL: Z= A. Scope: No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the town unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter. The addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall be exempt from this provision, but shall still require compliance with the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. B. Violation: It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building permit for any person to commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the administrator and/or the design review board and the building official. C. Nonconforming Sites And Structures; Effect Of Design Guidelines: 1. Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the design guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the design guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. 2. From the effective date of July 21, 1998, there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform to the design guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform to the design guidelines. An expansion which is greater than five hundred (500) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the design guidelines. 3. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the design review board, pursuant to the design guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. 4. Expansions made pursuant to section 12-15-5 of this title shall require full compliance of the entire dwelling unit with the design guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to section 12-15-4 of this title shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the design guidelines, unless it can be classified as a "demo/rebuild", pursuant to section 12-2-2 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 10(l 998) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE:O A. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the formal filing of an application for design approval, the applicant should confer with the department of community development to obtain information and guidance. The purpose of such a conference is to permit the applicant and the staff to review informally the proposal before substantial commitments of time and money are made. The department of community development shall indicate on the application form appropriate staff with which the applicant shall confer. Topics of discussion shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including its location, significant natural and manmade features with particular attention to natural hazard areas, the size and accessibility of the site, surrounding development and land use, and existing zoning. 2. The nature of the development proposed, including land use types and their densities; the placement and design of proposed buildings and other improvements of the site, the location, type, and treatment of open space areas, the preservation of natural features, proposed parking areas and internal circulation system, the total ground coverage of paved areas, and structures. 3. Community policy considerations including the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the policies and regulations of the town. 4. Applicable regulations, review procedures, and submission requirements. 5. For certain low impact applications, such as, but not limited to, minor remodels, the staff shall assist the applicant in determining applicable regulations and shall specify submission requirements which may be waived. B. Conceptual Design Review: Submittal Requirements: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as prescribed by this chapter may submit plans for conceptual review by the design review board to the department of community development. The purpose of a conceptual review shall be to give the applicant a basic understanding with respect to the design concept and the compatibility of a proposal with the design guidelines contained within this chapter. This procedure is recommended mainly for those applications of a higher impact than single-family and two-family residences although projects of that nature shall not be excluded the opportunity to request a conceptual design review. The following information shall be submitted for a conceptual review ten (10) days prior to a scheduled design review board meeting: a. A conceptual site and landscape plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'). b. Conceptual elevations and exterior materials, and a description of the character of the proposed structure or structures. c. Sufficient information to show that the proposal complies with the development standards of the zone district in which the project is to be located (i.e., square footage total, site coverage calculations, number of parking spaces, etc.). d. Application form. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. e. Planning and environmental commission and/or town council approval if required. 2. Staff; Board Procedure: a. Upon receipt of an application for conceptual design review the department of community development shall review the submitted materials for general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the zoning regulations. If the proposal is in basic compliance with the zoning regulations the project shall be forwarded to the design review board for conceptual review. If the application is not generally in compliance with the zoning regulations the application and submittal materials shall be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the department of community development's findings. b. The design review board shall review the application and supporting material that has been submitted for a conceptual review in order to determine whether or not the project generally complies with the design guidelines, and forward comments concerning the design to the applicant. No vote of the design review board will be required unless requested by the applicant. The property owner or his/her representative shall be present at the design review board hearing. C. Preliminary And Final Design Review: 1. Material Submitted To Administrator: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as prescribed by this chapter shall submit for final design approval all of the following material to the administrator, unless the administrator determines within five (5) days of a written request for such determination that some of the following material may be excluded: Survey: A topographic survey representative of existing conditions stamped by a surveyor licensed within the state at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger of the site with contour intervals of not more than two feet (2'). Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of four inches (4") or more at one foot (1') above natural grade, rock outcroppings and other significant natural features such as avalanche areas, 100 -year floodplain, and slopes of forty percent (40%) or more shall be shown, if applicable. The survey shall include ties to an existing bench mark (either a USGS landmark or sewer invert), property lines showing distances and basis of bearing, and all easements. b. Title Report: A preliminary title report. Drainage Plan: A drainage plan shall be prepared. For all developments this study shall include a contour map showing all existing and proposed watercourses, including the seasonal course limits of points of departure from the development. An indication of the limits of the 100 -year floodplain shall be plotted on the contour map as well as any revised floodplains. The drainage plan shall also indicate the location and types of structures that will be necessary to handle the quantities of water evidenced on the site. Site Plan: A site plan, drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger, showing existing and finished grades, the existing and proposed layout of buildings and other structures including decks, patios, canopies, fences, and walls. The site plan shall show the locations of landscaped areas, service areas, storage areas, pedestrian walks, driveways with percent slope and spot elevations, off street parking and loading areas, all retaining walls with spot elevations, and the proposed elevations of the top of roof ridges. The site plan shall indicate the locations of ingress and egress and the directions of traffic flow into and out of as well as within parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading berth, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The site plan shall show exact locations of all utilities including existing sources and proposed service lines from sources to the structures. The site plan shall designate proposed limits of construction activity. e. Utility Verification Form: A utility verification form signed by each utility verifying location of service and availability. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger. The landscape plan shall show locations of existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of four inches (4") or more at one foot (1') above natural grade that are proposed to be removed. Shrubs and other native plants proposed to be removed shall be indicated. The landscape plan shall show trees and other native plants proposed to be retained and methods to be utilized for the purpose of protecting existing vegetation, the location and design of proposed landscaped areas, irrigation systems, the varieties and sizes of plant materials to be planted therein, and the location and design of swimming pool areas, patios, play areas, recreation facilities, and other usable open space. The landscape plan shall show the mature canopy of trees and shrubs after fifteen (15) years of growth. The landscape plan shall be accompanied by a landscape materials list specifying size and quantity of plant materials and a report of the condition of the existing vegetation upon the site. The landscape plan shall include sufficient detail to provide a reliable basis for estimating the amount of a performance bond guaranteeing installation and maintenance of the improvement if required by the town. Architectural Plans: Preliminary architectural plans drawn at a scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot (1/8" = 1') or larger, including floor plans labeled and drawn in sufficient detail to permit determination of whether all requirements of this title based on floor area will be met. Architectural plans shall include all elevations of proposed structures as they will appear on completion. All elevations shall indicate both existing and finished grades. One or more perspective sketches, a scale model, photographic overlays, or other similar techniques shall be submitted, as necessary, to illustrate the overall appearance of the building and site development features in relation to adjacent properties in the neighborhood. All exterior surfacing materials and colors shall be specified, and samples of each, with proposed finish shall be submitted. Sign Regulations Compliance: Scale drawings, plans renderings, photographs or other information required by the sign ordinance codified in title 11 of this code, showing in detail design, materials, and colors and specifying the method of illumination. Locations of proposed signs shall be indicated by a numbering system or other clearly comprehensible system of reference to the site plan prescribed in subsection C1 d of this section. Upon request of the administrator, samples of sign materials shall be submitted. i. Erosion And Revegetation Plan: Erosion control and revegetation landscaping plans. (1) Plan Required: In all developments involving two (2) or more acres, an erosion control plan will be required. For developments involving less than two (2) acres, an erosion control plan may be required by the department of community development, based upon conditions of slope and soil stability. (2) Control Measures: The erosion control plan shall contain control measures sufficient to prevent the loss by erosion of no more than three (3) tons of soil per acre per year. These standards may be met through the use of physical measures as detention ponds, grassed waterways and filtration galleries, or by nonstructural means. (3) Review Of Plan: The department of community development shall review and approve all erosion control plans and shall maintain a list of erosion control practices, both structural and nonstructural. (4) Revegetation: Revegetation shall be an integral part of the erosion control plan. Topsoil shall be saved during construction and used for revegetation of disturbed areas. (5) Revegetation Landscaping: Such plan shall be required of any applicant proposing to remove or disturb existing vegetation. Potential damage to existing landscaping/vegetation shall be adequate reason for requiring a revegetation plan. At a minimum, plans submitted under this subsection shall include revegetation of land disturbed by development and construction activity. The department of community development shall establish and maintain a list of revegetation best management practices. (6) Additional Requirements: In addition to the above requirements, the department of community development may require any or all of the following: (A) Timing of disturbance. (B) Disturbed area controls. (C) Stabilization during disturbance. (D) Monitoring during disturbance. (E) Postdisturbance monitoring. (F) Water quality impact report. (G) Drainage study. j. Stormwater Quality Permits: Refer to title 14, chapter 6, "Grading Standards", of this code. k. Phasing Plan: If a project is to be built in phases the applicant shall submit a site plan of the proposed project indicating the location and timing of each phase of the project, areas to be utilized as construction staging areas for each phase, and the limits of construction activity for each phase. I. Form And Fee: Application form and appropriate fee. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. m. Lighting Plan: An outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted separately from the site plan or landscape plan, and shall show the location, the height above grade, the type of illumination (such as incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium, etc.), the source lumens, and the luminous area for each light source which is proposed. The applicant shall provide documentation that the lights meet the standards set forth in section 12-11-5 of this chapter. In addition to locating this information graphically on a plan, the applicant shall provide the information on the application form provided by the department of community development. 2. Staff Or Design Review Board Procedure: The department of community development shall check all material submitted for design review for compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and with this subsection C (the submittal requirements of this section as outlined above). If the application is found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and this subsection C, the project shall either be placed upon the agenda of the next appropriately scheduled design review board meeting in accordance with the required application submittal deadlines on file in the department of community development, or be reviewed by the administrator in accordance with subsection C3, "Staff Approval", of this section. If the application is found not to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning regulations and this subsection C, the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the administrator's findings. The administrator may require any additional items from the applicant as may be necessary for complete and proper design review. The administrator or the design review board shall review the application and supporting material, and if the design of the project is found to comply with the objectives and design guidelines of this chapter, the administrator or the design review board shall approve the design of the project, documenting such approval in writing and noting any conditions of approval. If additional items are needed, as specified herein, to determine whether the project will comply with the purpose statement and design guidelines of this chapter, the design review board may give preliminary approval or table the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if preliminary approval is given, the board shall specify the conditions and additional and/or modified materials which must be submitted by the applicant to the design review board or to the administrator, including any changes in the design of the project. The applicant may also table the application to a future meeting for any reason. b. If the project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the administrator or the design review board shall disapprove the design of the project. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the design guidelines with which the design of the project does not comply and the manner of noncompliance. c. Following the final review of an application by the design review board at a public meeting, the design review board shall have thirty (30) days to consider and approve or deny an application. The time for action may be extended at the request of the applicant. d. If changes in the design of the project are requested, the design review board shall approve, disapprove or request further changes within thirty (30) days of the meeting at which the design review board receives the changes unless an extension is agreed to by the applicant. e. The applicant or his/her authorized representative shall be present at the design review board meeting. 3. Staff Approval: The administrator may approve any of the following applications: a. Any application to modify an existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, including, but not limited to, exterior building finish materials (e.g., stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas, satellite dishes, windows, skylights, minor commercial facade improvements, and other similar modifications; b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a condominium association, if applicable; c. Any application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site; and d. Any application for site improvements or modifications including, but not limited to, driveway modifications, site grading, site walls, installation of accessory structures or recreational facilities. In the above specified cases, the administrator may review and approve the application, approve the application with certain modifications, deny the application, or refer the application to the design review board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the design review board. (Ord. 27(2016) § 2: Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 3(2005) § 1: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 9(1996) § 6: Ord. 9(1993) § 6: Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES: 0 The design guidelines for all development are contained in title 14 of this code. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 22(1999) § 5) 12-11-6: PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES: 0 A. Purpose: These guidelines shall be used by the design review board in reviewing any proposals for the development of town park land. The guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the general design review guidelines found in title 14 of this code. It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time encouraging park development that will complement the natural beauty of our park land. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide continuity in the character of the parks which will be developed over many years. The guidelines will provide consistent design criteria to maintain the quality of town parks through all phases of development. B. Building Materials And Design: 1. General: a. Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park construction. Materials and detailing must complement the park's environment as well as be functional and attractive. b. Materials and designs should be chosen that are economical to maintain. 2. Stone: Natural rock should be used for architectural features such as exposed building walls and small retaining walls. Sandy gray and brown colors are encouraged, as they blend in with the natural environment. Construction should minimize exposed mortar, and detailing should reflect concern for local climatic conditions. Pedestrian Walks; Plazas: Impervious surfacing may be used to emphasize important features or pedestrian areas. Natural materials and colors are encouraged, as they blend in well with wood, stone and plant materials. Asphalt is discouraged except when necessary for bike paths and parking areas. 4. Children's Play Areas: Children's play areas are to be designed with challenge and safety in mind. Multilevel play structures, tunnels, and other climbing apparatus are to be designed to excite and to encourage free expression. Native landscaping materials shall be incorporated into the play areas to soften and blend into the environment. Plant materials shall be provided for the enclosure of the play areas and for summer shading. Play areas shall be oriented to take advantage of warm winter exposure and to utilize natural buffers from the wind. 5. Visual Impact: a. Structures, shelters, or other site buildings shall be designed in a low profile or be set into slope areas to reduce their vertical dominance upon the site. b. Major architectural structures shall be designed and accented to attract visitors without becoming a distracting visual element to other visitors of the park or to adjacent developments. C. Landscaping; Site Planning: 1. General: Plantings should be used to soften the edge between developed and natural park areas and to heavily screen conflicting adjacent uses. Such plantings unify developed and natural areas as well as provide a protective buffer where the adjacent land uses conflict with recreational activities. As an example, gently sloping lawns are desirable for picnic areas and open field play. Irrigated and manicured lawn areas can transition into natural areas through the use of native grasses and shrubs. Fences shall be discouraged between active and passive areas. b. Noise generating and active play areas should be integrated together and placed away from passive or natural areas. Needed service facilities, such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc., should be located in or adjacent to activities with a high user demand. 2. Views: Plantings and site work should be used to direct views by framing interesting and attractive features such as distant mountain ranges, ponds, or Gore Creek. Visual screens of plant materials may be used to close off undesired views such as the interstate, frontage roads, or neighboring development. 3. Accent Plantings And Materials: In areas of special interest or activity, and in pedestrian areas, plantings should be used to provide color, texture, form and scent to highlight and emphasize the special character of these places. Horizontal ground plane textures such as native shrubs, ground covers, colored pavers, and smooth boulders may also be used to complement the environment. 4. Lighting: If site lighting is deemed appropriate, the lighting should provide for clear visibility while at the same time eliminating any glare within the park or on adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall be as subtle as possible so that they blend in with the natural park setting. A lighting plan designating location and appropriate styles of lighting shall be designed for each park that requires site lighting. 5. Signage: Any signs within the park shall conform to a unified park signage program. Private signs are prohibited from the park. D. Access And Parking: 1. Pedestrian Walks And Bike Paths: a. Pedestrian walks and bike paths shall be provided in the areas of developed facilities and circulation routes. Walks and bike paths shall be accessible to the physically handicapped and should be constructed of a hard material. b. Pathways through natural areas shall be placed where little grade change is required. Surface materials which provide a hard surface and have a natural appearance should be encouraged. 2. Parking: a. Parking areas shall be sensitively planned to provide needed parking without impacting the natural or recreational use areas. Parking shall be visually screened to as great a degree as feasible. b. Landscaping should be provided along public perimeter roads and between parking areas to provide screening of noise and visual pollution. E. Site Preservation And Maintenance: 1. Site Preservation: Open meadows of native grasses and flowers, and permanent stands of evergreens should be maintained in undeveloped areas of the parks. 2. Site Revegetation: Natural areas that are disturbed during construction shall be vegetated to encourage plant associations that develop naturally on the site. Revegetation should match preexisting conditions as closely as possible. 3. Erosion Control: a. Temporary erosion control measures during construction, and permanent control measures after construction shall be established to prevent sediment pollution of the creek and to stabilize disturbed areas. Straw bales shall be used for temporary control measures and jute netting should be used to permanently stabilize slopes. Any park projects shall be required to include a site preservation program during construction phases. b. Limits of site disturbance shall be clearly and physically defined as well as enforced in order to minimize disturbance to other areas in the park. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 4(1986) § 1) 12-11-7: DESIGN REVIEW FEE: 0 The town council shall set a design review fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of town staff time, consultant fees, and incidental expense. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-8: PERFORMANCE BOND:= The building official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The building official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the department of community development a performance bond or other security acceptable to the town council in the sum of one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. If said landscaping, paving, and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate of occupancy may be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond or other accepted security that has been approved by the town. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 5(2003) § 15: 1997 Code: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-9: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:= (Rep. by Ord. 2(2003) § 1) 12-11-10: APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL: 0 (Rep. by Ord. 2(2003) § 1) 12-11-11: ENFORCEMENT; INSPECTION:O Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the department of community development. The department of community development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the design review board. It shall be the duty of the property owner or his/her authorized agent to notify the department of community development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the department of community development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the adopted building code, the applicant shall post a bond as set forth in section 12-11-8 of this chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond or surety, the town shall proceed to install the improvements for which bond or surety was posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the town for the additional costs thereof. Furthermore, the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 31(2001) § 10: Ord. 39(1983) § 1) 12-11-12: LAPSE OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAUZ 0 Approval of the design of a project as prescribed by this chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of final approval of the project unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. However, if there have been no zoning revisions or revisions or amendments to these guidelines which would alter the conditions under which the approval was given, the community development staff may extend the period of approval. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1) ATTACHMENT C Chapter 21 HAZARD REGULATIONS 0 12-21-1: PURPOSE: 12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: 12-21-3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS: 12-21-4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS: 12-21-5: TOWN MANAGER TO ACCUMULATE INFORMATION: 12-21-6: SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES BY APPLICANT: 12-21-7: REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL: 12-21-8: INTERPRETATION: 12-21-9: DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: 12-21-10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED: 12-21-11: FLOOD HAZARD ZONES: 12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: 12-21-13: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: 12-21-14: RIGHT OF APPEAL: 12-21-15: REQUIREMENT OF BOND: 12-21-1: PURPOSE: 0 The purpose of this chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the town from dangers relating to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to wildfire, flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the town where floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 5(1985) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: 4t 0 For the purposes of this chapter, the words contained in this section are defined as follows: ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING: Flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform, which originates at the apex and is characterized by high velocity flows; active processes of erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths. APEX: A point on an alluvial fan or similar landform below which the flow path of the major stream that formed the fan becomes unpredictable and alluvial fan flooding can occur. AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODING: A designated AO, AH, or VO zone on a community's flood insurance rate map (FIRM) with a one percent (1%) chance or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet (3') where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. BASE FLOOD: The flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation shown on a FEMA flood insurance rate map for zones AE, AH, Al -A30, AR, AR/A, ARAE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1 -V30, and VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one percent (1%) chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. BASEMENT: Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. BLUE HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: An area impacted by a snow producing a total static and dynamic pressure less than six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval in excess of twenty five (25) years. CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION (CLOMR): FEMA's comment on a proposed project, which does not revise an effective floodplain map, that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodplain. CRITICAL FACILITY: A structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is situated, as specified in subsection 12-21-11I of this chapter, that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during and after a flood. CRITICAL FEATURE: An integral and readily identifiable part of a flood protection system, without which the flood protection provided by the entire system would be compromised. DEVELOPMENT: Any manmade change in improved and unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. ELEVATED BUILDING: A nonbasement building: a) built, in the case of a building in zones Al -30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, to have the top of the elevated floor, or in the case of a building in zones V1-30, VE, or V, to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure member of the elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings, columns (posts and piers), or shear walls parallel to the floor of the water and b) adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood. In the case of zones Al -30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of floodwaters. In the case of zones VI -30, VE, or V, "elevated building" also includes a building otherwise meeting the definition of "elevated building", even though the lower area is enclosed by means of breakaway walls if the breakaway walls met the standards of section 60.3(e)(5) of the national flood insurance program regulations. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION: For the purposes of determining rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced before the effective date of the FIRM. "Existing construction" may also be referred to as "existing structures". FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: The land in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area is designated as zones A, AE, AH, AO, Al -99, VO, V1-30, VE or V, on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM). FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): An official map on which the federal emergency management agency has delineated both the special flood hazard areas (SFHA) and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the federal emergency management agency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood as well as the flood boundary-floodway map. FLOOD OR FLOODING: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: A. The overflow of inland or tidal waters. B. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM: Those physical structural works for which funds have been authorized, appropriated, and expended and which have been constructed specifically to modify flooding in order to reduce the extent of the areas within a community subject to a "special flood hazard" and the extent of the depths of associated flooding. Such a system typically includes hurricane tidal barriers, dams, reservoirs, levees or dikes. These specialized flood modifying works are those constructed in conformance with sound engineering standards. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations. FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD PRONE AREA: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of Flood Or Flooding). FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. FLOODWAY (REGULATORY FLOODWAY): The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT USE: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, but does not include long term storage or related manufacturing facilities. GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA: An area within the town of Vail which may be subject to rockfalls, mudflows, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstable soil, slopes or rocks. HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Any structure that is: A. Listed individually in the national register of historic places (a listing maintained by the department of interior) or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the national register; B. Certified or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the secretary of interior; or D. Classified as historically significant per title 10, chapter 2, "Special Historic And Architectural Structures", of this code. LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR): FEMA's official revision of an effective flood insurance rate map (FIRM), or flood boundary and floodway map (FBFM), or both. LOMRs are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective base flood elevations (BFEs), or special flood hazard area (SFHA). LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL (LOMR-F): FEMA's modification of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) shown on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) based on the placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway. LEVEE: A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. LEVEE SYSTEM: A flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices. LOWEST FLOOR: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirement of section 60.3 of the national flood insurance program regulations. MEAN SEA LEVEL: For purposes of the national flood insurance program, the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's flood insurance rate map are referenced. NEW CONSTRUCTION: For the purpose of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, "new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after December 4, 2007, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN: See the definition of Flood Hazard Zone. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle which is: A. Built on a single chassis; B. Four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. RED HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: Any area impacted by a snow avalanche producing a total static and dynamic pressure in excess of six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years. SLOPE: As defined in section 12-2-2 of this title. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year, i.e., the 100 -year floodplain. START OF CONSTRUCTION (For Other Than New Construction Or Substantial Improvements Under The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 97-348)): Includes substantial improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the "actual start of construction" means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure. Market value shall be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the administrator. The market value of a structure is determined either: A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. VIOLATION: The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in section 60.3(b)(5), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION: The height, in relation to the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas. WILDFIRE HAZARD AREA: For the purposes of this code a wildfire hazard area is defined as an area at elevated risk to public safety from wildland fire. Wildfire hazard areas contain or are surrounded by vegetation, live or dead, which has the potential to burn and cause public safety hazards. All of the Town of Vail is within a wildfire hazard area. ZONE OF INFLUENCE: Any area in a potential avalanche hazard zone where detailed information is not currently available but which may be impacted by said hazard. These zones of influence shall be designated on the appropriate maps of the administrator of the town. (Ord. 19(2013) § 1) 12-21-3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS: 4t "- The The town manager shall formulate and develop master hazard plans for the town. Said hazard plans shall be based on engineering studies and shall indicate the location of known floodplains, avalanche, wildfire hazard areas and geological hazard zones of influence, known red and blue avalanche and geological hazard areas, and forty percent (40%) slope areas. In addition, the plans may show any other information or data deemed to be desirable by the town manager. Maximum citizen participation during the formulation of the master hazard plans as well as other phases of the information implementation of the hazard studies and regulations shall be encouraged. The purpose of the master hazard plans is to identify and alleviate present and future problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the town by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas. The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform to new information or existing conditions. (Ord. 29(2005) § 43: Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS: 4t 0 The master hazard plans shall not be considered to be official hazard master plans of the town until and unless the town council adopts the same, by motion. No substantial modification of the master hazard plan shall be made unless it is first approved by the town council in a similar manner. As soon as the master hazard plans are adopted, or portions thereof are adopted, a copy of it shall be placed on file in the office of the town clerk, where it may be inspected by any interested party during normal business hours. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-5: TOWN MANAGER TO ACCUMULATE INFORMATION: It 0 The town manager, with the advice and approval of the planning and environmental commission, shall continue to study and accumulate information as to hazard areas. When additional information is available, it shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission and added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-6: SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES BY APPLICANT: C 0 If an application is made to build in an identified avalanche hazard zone of influence or modification to the floodplain, the administrator may require the applicant to conduct supplemental studies as specified in this chapter. The information submitted by the applicant following completion of said studies shall be viewed by the town staff and the planning and environmental commission and may be added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-7: REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL: It 0 The town manager shall report to the town council not less than once each year on any additions that have been made to the master hazard plan. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-8: INTERPRETATION: The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be minimum requirements. Nothing herein shall impair the obligations of or interfere with private agreements in excess of the minimum requirements. Where this chapter imposes a restriction different from that imposed by other applicable provisions of law, contract, or deed, the more restrictive provision shall control. (Ord. 5(1985) § 3) 12-21-9: DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: It 0 This chapter is based on scientific and engineering considerations which are continually being developed. Compliance with the provisions herein cannot ensure freedom from risk to life, safety or property. This section shall not create liability on the part of the town or any officer or employee thereof for any damage that may result from reliance on this chapter, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. The designation of certain areas as hazard areas or geologically sensitive areas pursuant to maps incorporated into this chapter does not imply in any way that areas not so designated are free from all risk to life, safety or property. (Ord. 5(1985) § 4) 12-21-10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED: C "- A. A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater except in single-family residential, two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. The term "structure" as used in this section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accord with chapter 12 of this title. D. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed in the blue avalanche hazard zone. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with chapter 12 of this title. (Ord. 28(2007) § 4: Ord. 29(2005) § 44: Ord. 16(1983) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12-21-11: FLOOD HAZARD ZONES: 4t 0 A. Lands To Which This Chapter Applies: This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard areas and areas removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F) within the jurisdiction of the town of Vail, Colorado. B. Purpose: To promote public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 1. Protect human life and health; 2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in floodplains; 6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; 7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area; 8. Ensure that those who occupy the floodplain assume the responsibility for their actions; 9. Protect the natural areas required to convey flood flows and retain flow characteristics; and 10. Obtain and maintain the benefits to the community of participating in the national flood insurance program. C. Basis For Establishing Special Flood Hazard Areas: Special flood hazard areas identified by the federal emergency management agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled, "The Flood Insurance Study For Eagle County, Colorado, And Incorporated Areas" dated December 4, 2007, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. D. Designation Of The Floodplain Administrator: The town engineer or designee is hereby appointed the floodplain administrator to administer and implement the provisions of this chapter and other appropriate sections of 44 CFR (national flood insurance program regulations) pertaining to floodplain management. E. Duties And Responsibilities Of The Floodplain Administrator: Duties and responsibilities of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter. 2. Review all permit applications to ensure that the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied and that the proposed improvement will be reasonably safe from flooding. 3. Review, approve or deny floodplain use and modification permits to determine whether proposed improvements meet the provisions of this chapter. 4. Review evidence prior to the issuance of a floodplain use permit that all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state, or local government agencies from which prior approval is required. Conditional floodplain use permits may be issued contingent upon receipt of the above mentioned agency permits. 5. Review and verify that no new habitable structure is constructed within the special flood hazard area. 6. Review and verify that a licensed professional engineer or professional land surveyor certified the location of the 100 -year floodplain on all development applications that are adjacent to, or partially located within the 100 -year floodplain, that are proposing improvements that may affect the floodplain. 7. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the special flood hazard areas (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions) the floodplain administrator shall make the necessary interpretation. 8. Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the Colorado water conservation board, prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the federal emergency management agency. 9. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within any altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained. 10. When base flood elevation data have not been provided in accordance with subsection C of this section, the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data and floodway data available from federal, state or other source, in order to administer the provisions of subsection G of this section. 11. When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the floodplain administrator must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within zones Al -30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one-half foot (1/2) at any point within the community. 12. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance program regulations, a community may approve certain development in zones Al -30, AE, AH, on the community's FIRM which increases the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one-half foot (1/2'), provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM revision through FEMA (conditional letter of map revision). F. Floodplain Permits: 1. Floodplain Use Permit: a. Purpose: The floodplain use permit is a permit to allow temporary grading within the floodplain and allow for necessary public infrastructure improvements within the floodplain. A floodplain use permit may be issued under at least one of the following conditions: (1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the site is returned to its existing grade and conditions; (2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the 100 -year floodplain; (3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; b. Floodplain Use Permit Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental commission: (1) Site plan at an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of the proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100 -year floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor. (2) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions. (3) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how, and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant criterion in subsection F3 of this section. (4) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit, ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit, etc.). (5) If required by the floodplain administrator, an engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts to the floodplain prepared by a qualified licensed professional engineer. (6) Submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable. (7) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator. 2. Floodplain Modification Permit: a. Purpose: A floodplain modification permit is a permit to allow construction of improvements and/or modifications to the adopted floodplain for all other uses, improvements, or modifications to or within the floodplain that do not fall within the guidelines of the floodplain use permit. However, no habitable structures or improvements shall be allowed to be constructed within the floodplain. b. Floodplain Modification Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental commission: (1) Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement and crawl space) of all new and substantially improved structures within or adjacent to the floodplain. (2) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how, and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant factor in subsection F3 of this section. (3) Signature of the owners of all property subject to an impact by the proposed improvement. (4) A site plan drawn to an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of the proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100 -year floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional engineer or land surveyor. (5) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions. (6) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit, ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit). (7) An engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts to the floodplain prepared by a qualified licensed professional engineer. (8) Copy of submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable. (9) Environmental impact report, per chapter 12 of this title. (10) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator. 3. Review, Criteria And Findings: At the discretion of the floodplain administrator, floodplain use permits may be reviewed by the floodplain administrator or the PEC. All floodplain modification permits shall be reviewed and approved by the floodplain administrator and the PEC. a. Criteria: The following factors shall be used to make a determination in issuance of floodplain permits: (1) The effects upon the efficiency or capacity of the floodway; (2) The effects upon persons and personal property upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity; (3) The effects upon the 100 -year flood profile and channel stability; (4) The effects upon any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches and any other drainage facilities or systems; (5) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; (6) The susceptibility of the proposed improvement and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (7) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; (9) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (10) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems; (11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; (12) The effect the proposed changes will have any adverse environmental effect on the watercourse including, without limitation, erosion of stream banks and stream side trees and vegetation and wildlife habitat; (13) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; (14) The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; (15) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. b. Findings: The following findings shall be made before granting of a floodplain permit: (1) That the proposed use or modification adequately addresses the findings in subsection F3a of this section, as determined by the floodplain administrator, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved; (2) That the proposed use or modification is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (3) That the proposed use or modification is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4) That the proposed use or modification promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 4. Permit Fees: The town council shall set a floodplain permit schedule sufficient to cover the cost of town staff time, consultant fees, and incidental expense. 5. Expiration Of Permit: A floodplain permit shall expire two (2) years after its date of issuance if the permittee has not started construction under the permit. G. Provisions For Flood Hazard Reduction: 1. General Standards: In all special flood hazard areas, the following provisions are required for all new construction and substantial improvements: a. Habitable structures or improvements shall not be permitted to be constructed within the 100 - year floodplain. Improvements that may be approved for construction within the 100 -year floodplain include: (1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the site is returned to its existing grade and conditions; (2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; (4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain; b. An insignificant impact to the floodplain shall be defined as: An improvement in the floodplain that is a public benefit that meets the criteria set out in subsection Gla of this section and causes no negative impacts to adjacent properties and no permanent localized cumulative increase in the adopted base flood elevations (BFE) greater than 0.25 vertical feet. The applicant shall apply for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable; c. All new structures or improvements, unless otherwise specifically provided for within this chapter, shall not influence the 100 -year floodplain and shall maintain a minimum clear distance from the 100 -year floodplain of one foot (F) in both the horizontal and vertical directions; d. Floor plans and elevations illustrating that the lowest floor elevations including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, of the new or substantially improved structure, shall be elevated to at least one foot (1') above the base flood elevation; e. All approved new or modified improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the improvement resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; f All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; g. All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage; h. All existing nonconforming structures located within the 100 -year floodplain that may require maintenance shall not negatively impact the adopted BFEs or adjacent properties in any way, unless as provided by subsection Gla of this section; and shall increase conformity and flood protection as required by the floodplain administrator (i.e., floodproofing, flotation prevention, flood resistant materials, etc.); i. All existing nonconforming structures that may require maintenance to operational systems that are within the floodplain shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; j. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system; k. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and 1. On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 2. Standards For Areas Of Shallow Flooding (AO/AH Zones): Located within the special flood hazard areas established in subsection C of this section, are areas designated as shallow flooding. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of one to three feet (3') where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow; therefore, the following provisions apply: a. All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated one foot (1') above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least 3 feet if no depth number is specified). b. All new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures have the lowest floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated one foot (1') above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community's FIRM (at least 3 feet if no depth number is specified), or; together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that one foot (1') above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. c. A registered professional engineer or architect shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standards of this chapter are satisfied. d. Require within zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. 3. Floodways: Floodways located within special flood hazard areas established in subsection C of this section, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions shall apply: a. Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. b. If this subsection G is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this subsection G. c. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA. H. Properties Removed From Floodplain By Fill: 1. Permit: A floodplain permit shall not be issued for the construction of a new structure or addition to an existing structure on a property removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F), unless such new structure or addition complies with the following: a. Residential construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot (F) above the base flood elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill. b. Nonresidential construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including ductwork), must be elevated to one foot (F) above the base flood elevation that existed prior to the placement of fill, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that the structure or addition is watertight to at least one foot (F) above the base flood level that existed prior to the placement of fill with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy. L Critical Facilities: 1. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the regulatory floodplain. 2. Construction of new critical facilities in the regulatory floodplain shall be permissible if no feasible alternative site is available, provided: a. Critical facilities shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet (3') above the base flood elevation or to the height of the 500 -year flood, whichever is higher. If there is no available data on the 500 -year flood, the permit applicants shall develop the needed data in accordance with FEMA mapping guidelines. b. Access to and from the critical facility shall be protected to the elevation of the 500 -year flood. (Ord. 19(2013) § 2) 12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: It 0 "Slope" is the gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement of a lot, site, or parcel which shall be established by measuring the maximum number of feet in elevation gained or lost over each ten feet (10') or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any direction between opposing lot lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measure as divided by the horizontal measurement shall be expressed as a percentile as a means of quantifying the term "slope". In determination of "slope" as defined herein, for use in establishing buildable area requirements and maximum floor area ratio limitations on existing and proposed lots, a grid system based on ten foot (10') modules shall be superimposed on a topographic map of the subject property and the lot slope determination established by the defined method for each one hundred (100) square foot grid portion of the tract, lot or portion thereof. The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family primary/secondary residential district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent (30%): A. A soil and foundation investigation, prepared by and bearing the seal of a registered professional engineer shall be required. B. Foundations must be designated and bear the seal of a registered professional engineer. C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour intervals of not more than two feet (2'), shall be required. D. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect. E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-6A-9, 12-613-9, 12-6C- 9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. 2. In order to protect the natural landform and vegetation on steep slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The design review board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation. F. A site grading and drainage plan shall be required. G. A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five feet (5') shall be required. H. A detailed revegetation plan must be submitted. L The administrator may require an environmental impact report as provided in section 12-12-2 of this title. J. A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. K. Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by sections 12-6A-6, 12-613-6, 12-6C-6 and 12-6D-6 of this title, are amended as follows: There shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the design review board. Garages located in the front setback, as provided for in this section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the design review board. L. Retaining walls up to six feet (6) in height may be permitted in the setback by the design review board when associated with a permitted garage as referenced in subsection K of this section. (Ord. 28(2007) § 8: Ord. 17(2006) § 1: Ord. 29(2005) § 45: Ord. 5(2001) § 3: Ord. 2(1995) § 1: Ord. 13(1994) § 1) 12-21-13: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: It 0 A. Maps Adopted: The following maps are hereby adopted as the official maps of the town, identifying areas of geologic sensitivity: 1. The debris flow and debris avalanche hazard analysis map prepared by Arthur L Mears, P.E., Inc., and dated November 1984. 2. The rockfall map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc., and dated November 29, 1984. 3. All areas within the boundaries of the geologic hazards map, figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982. B. Investigation: 1. In any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore map, or in any area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears map, or in any area identified as a rockfall area by the Schmueser map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site specific geologic investigation is complete. For the purpose of this section, a site specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required by this section shall be prepared by a "professional geologist", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34-1-01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-25-102, as amended, under the direction of and at the expense of the owner/applicant and submitted to the department of community development. 2. The extent of the site specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this code: (1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations. (2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construction. b. For single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this title, the site specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: (1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. C. Development Plan Or Building Permit: Following the completion of the site specific geological investigation and its review by the department of community development, a development plan may be approved or a building permit may be issued as follows: 1. For all structures other than single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this title: a. If the conclusion of the engineer or geologist performing the investigation is that the site can be developed for the specific structure or activity proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit may be approved without conditions relating to the mitigation of the areas of geologic sensitivity. b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety or to property to a reasonable level, and such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, approval of the development plan and/or the issuance of the building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering and engineered construction or other litigation or alterations as set forth in this title. c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure or use proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated to a reasonable level, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit shall be denied. 2. For single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this title: a. If the conclusion of the engineer or the geologist performing the investigation is that the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, or that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but will not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, a grading permit or building permit may be issued. b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, the issuance of a building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this section. c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated so that the hazard to other properties or structures will not increase from the present level or the hazard to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities and facilities will not increase from the present level, then the building permit or grading permit shall be denied. D. Construction Requirements: The following requirements shall pertain to the construction of any building or structure to be built in an identified or designated area of geologic sensitivity and which requires corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations to reduce the danger to public health and safety or to property due to such problems as set forth in subsections Clb or C2b of this section: 1. The certified site specific reports and plans required by this subsection shall be prepared by each engineer and geologist as applicable to their area of expertise and specialty and shall certify that: a. Adequate base data as may be pertinent has been provided. b. Said base data is utilized in the design and planning of the proposed project or structure. c. Design and construction procedures derived from said base data are executed. d. Design and construction will reduce danger to the public health, safety or property due to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level. 2. No certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, shall be issued until the following have been approved by the department of community development or its authorized representatives: a. Inspection and certification by the town building official and the engineer or geologist who prepared the plans and specifications that the work was properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. b. If the engineer, geologist, or building official of the town finds that the work is not being done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the discrepancy shall be reported immediately in writing to the contractor and to the department of community development. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted. c. All geologic reports prepared under this section shall be signed by and prepared by or under the responsible direction of "professional geologists" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34-1-201, as amended. Such professional geologist shall be experienced and competent in the geologic specialty required to meet the objectives of this chapter. Such professional geologist shall be responsible for certification of all geologic maps and reports prepared by him/her under his/her responsible direction as specified in this section. All engineering reports required by this section shall be done by a "registered professional engineer" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-25-102, as amended. E. Existing Uses Continued; Exceptions: Existing use of land, structures or premises which are not in conformity with the provisions of this regulation may be continued, except for the following: 1. No building permit will be issued for the exterior expansion, alteration or addition to existing structures in geologically sensitive areas except for windows, skylights and other similar minor alterations unless the requirements of subsections B through D of this section are complied with. 2. Structures existing on the effective date hereof which are damaged or destroyed may be reconstructed without compliance to this section as long as said structure complies with other applicable ordinances and is constructed to substantially the same dimensions as existed prior to damage or destruction, unless given approval by the town to alter the design. F. Notice Requirements: In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, the following notice regulations and requirements are hereby adopted for all real property and structures located in geologically sensitive areas: 1. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with applicable subzone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice to interested parties. 2. All plans submitted after the effective date hereof with the building permit application for property within said areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgment of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 4. All owners, lessors or agents who rent, lease or sublet any structure or premises within an area of geologic sensitivity shall provide the tenant, lessee or subtenant with written notice that said property is located within said area prior to any lease being entered into or occupancy, whichever occurs first, if said rental lease or sublease will extend into the period of April 1 through July 1 of any year. 5. Each and every real estate agent, salesperson and broker, and each and every private party who offers for sale or shows a parcel of real estate and/or structure for sale within said area of geologic sensitivity, shall provide the prospective purchaser, with written notice that said real property and/or structure is located within said area of geologic sensitivity. Furthermore, written notice shall be made in all instances prior to the execution of any sales documents and shall state that this section and the studies and maps referred to in this section are available for public inspection at the office of the department of community development and that said maps, studies and this section should be reviewed prior to any party entering into any agreement or contract with regard thereto. G. Disputes; Procedure: In any case where a person wishes to dispute the designation of any property as a geologically sensitive area by one of the maps and studies adopted by this section, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the department of community development requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site specific geologic investigation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date a minimum of thirty (30) days after the application has been filed to allow for a staff review. 3. At the hearing before the town council, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his/her case and submit technical and geologic evidence to support his/her claim. If the site specific geologic investigation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property should not be designated as a geologically sensitive area, the town council shall direct the department of community development to amend the map appropriately. H. Additions To Maps: In any case where a person wishes to have one of the official maps adopted by this title amended to notate more detailed site specific information is available, the following procedure shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the department of community development requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site specific geologic investigation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date not less than thirty (30) days after the application has been filed nor more than sixty (60) days to allow for a staff review. 3. If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site specific geologic investigation is reliable, the town council shall direct the department of community development to keep a copy of said site specific investigation on file in the department of community development and available to the general public and shall further direct the department of community development to notate the appropriate official map adopted by this chapter so that it indicates that said site specific investigation is on file with the department of community development. (Ord. 28(2007) § 9: Ord. 29(2005) § 46: Ord. 20(1985) § 1: Ord. 5(1985) § 5) 12-21-14: RESTRICTIONS IN WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS All the Town of Vail is situated within a wildfire hazard zone. The natural vegetation surrounding and throughout the community is dependent on wildfire for regeneration and ecosystem health. The ecosystem is dependent upon infrequent, high severity stand replacing wildfire. Wildfires of this character can carry over many thousands of acres and burn for several weeks. Besides substantial flaming fronts, fires of this nature frequently send lame quantities of embers miles outside of the main fire perimeter i2nitin2 additional spot fires. Due to the lone and narrow layout of the town, no locations within the Town limits are outside the potential ember fall area from a wildfire. Structures built within the Town shall be constructed and landscaped in a manner to resist ignition from wildfire flames and embers. Specific requirements for ignition resistant construction and landscaping are in Title 10, Chapter 7A; Title 12, Chapter 11; and Title 14, Chapter 10 of this code. 12-21-15: RIGHT OF APPEAL: Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to appeal the decision of the administrator in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. In addition, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to seek a variance from the requirements of this chapter. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 17 of this title. Variances specific to section 12-21-11, "Flood Hazard Zones", of this chapter shall be governed by chapter 17 of this title and may be granted under the following conditions: A. The appeal board may grant variances and place conditions upon them as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this chapter as stated in subsection 12-21-11B of this chapter. B. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed on the national register of historic places or the state inventory of historic places, upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. C. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (Ord. 19(2013) § 3) 12-21-16: REQUIREMENT OF BOND: Any applicant under this chapter may be required to post bond, a letter of credit, or other guarantee to ensure that the improvements, reports, or other requirements of this chapter are completed and complied with. (Ord. 28(2007): Ord. 12(1983) § 1) ATTACHMENT D Proposed Text Amendment 14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: FLOOR AREA, GROSS: The total floor area within the enclosing walls of a structure including the following: A. Areas specifically designed and used for mechanical equipment to operate the building. B. Stairways. C. Elevators. D. Common hallways. E. Common lobbies. F. Common restrooms. G. Areas designed and used for parking. H. Areas designed and used as storage which do not have direct access to an individual office or retail store, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total proposed net floor area for office and not to exceed eight percent (8%) of the total proposed net floor area for retail. I. Areas that may be deducted from the gross residential floor area per Section 12-15-3 of this code "Common areas" are spaces for which all tenants in the building contribute toward the upkeep and maintenance thereof and are not used for employee working areas. ATTACHMENT E Chapter 10 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESo 14-10-1: PURPOSE: 14-10-2: GENERAL COMPATIBILITY: 14-10-3: SITE PLANNING: 14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC.: 14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN: 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 14-10-7: OUTDOOR LIGHTING: 14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: 14-10-9: FENCES, HEDGES, WALLS, AND SCREENING: 14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS: 14-10-11: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS: 14-10-12: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT: 14-10-1: PURPOSE:EtF7 This chapter provides the design review standards and guidelines for development in the town of Vail. Actions of the staff and the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed herein, the Vail Village urban design considerations and guide plan and the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, and by all of the applicable ordinances of the town and by the design guidelines in this chapter. (Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-2: GENERAL COMPATIBILITY: Z 0 A. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained. B. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique landforms and features. Whenever possible, these existing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural landforms and features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at odds with their surroundings. (Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-3: SITE PLANNING:(t= A. The location and configuration of structures and accessways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading requirements resulting from development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the property boundary. B. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage patterns, and vegetation. C. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those essential for development of the site, those identified as diseased, those essential for creating defensible space, and those found to impact view corridors as further regulated by title 12, chapter 22, "View Corridors", of this code. Mitigation may be required for tree removal. D. All areas disturbed during construction shall be revegetated. Replacement of disturbed soils and vegetation shall comply with the requirements of the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. If necessary, the design review board may designate allowable limits of construction activity and require physical barriers in order to preserve significant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during construction. (Ord. 10(2012) § 3: Ord. 3(2007) § 3: Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC.: 0 A. Architectural projections including eaves, roof overhangs, awnings, louvers, and similar shading features; sills, belt courses, cornices, and similar features; and flues and chimneys may project not more than four feet (4') into a required setback area or into a required distance between buildings. B. Porches, steps, decks or terraces or similar features located at ground level or within five feet (5') of ground level may project not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. Steps that form an exit discharge may project into a required setback area to the degree necessary to conform with the adopted building code's means of egress standards, at the discretion of the administrator. C. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5') above ground level may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-half (1/2) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. D. Fire escapes or exterior emergency exit stairways may project into any required setback area or distance between buildings not more than four feet (4'). E. Bay windows and similar features extending the interior enclosed space of a structure may project not more than three feet (3') into a required setback area or a required distance between buildings, provided that the total of all such projection does not exceed more than one-tenth (1/10) the area of the wall surface from which it projects or extends. F. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not usable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 29(2005) § 81: Ord., 9-21- 1999) 14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:O A. Intent: The town is situated within the wildland urban interface where community values intersect with the potential consequences of wildland fires. Wildland fires both big and small have the potential to destroy homes and neighborhoods within the town. The architecture and chosen materials of a building greatly affect the survivability of that structure in the face of a wildfire. The use of class A roof coverings and ignition resistant building materials decrease the hazards to the individual structure as well as the surrounding homes. B. Ignition Resistant Materials: The use of ignition resistant building materials and designs intended to prevent the spread of fire are highly eneou required, unless otherwise exempted by this code. Vail fire and emergency services is available to provide more information on the use of ignition resistant materials and designs. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the town. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS may be permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of the following siding materials shall be prohibited: stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials, simulated stone, simulated brick, plastic and vinyl. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this code, where the design review board finds: 1. That the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and 2. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this code; and 3. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the town; a -Rd 4 That the mn4crial is nnnnnmh c4i UP- nr aids in the nrcvcn4inn of fircc The provisions of this Paragraph B shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, repair, maintenance and use of any building, structure or premises within the town. Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures. Exceptions: a. Additions or alterations of less than 500 square feet of Gross Floor Area are exempt from the ignition resistant requirements of this paragraph B, but shall be subject to design review. Repair or replacement of 25% or less of a deck surface or support structure is exempt from the ignition resistant requirements of this paragraph B. b. Combustible siding, as defined in the Town's adopted building codes, may be used as long as it does not cover more than 33% of a given wall (excluding windows, doors and other openings) and may not be within 5 feet of the ground level. Combustible siding which has a profile that may allow ember intrusion such as wood shake or wood shingle is prohibited. C. Same Or Similar Materials: The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components of greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement. D. Colors: Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary colors or other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be nonreflective. E. Roof Forms: The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet (4') in twelve feet (12'). However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, fire safety and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. F. Rooflines: Rooflines should be designed so as not to deposit snow on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks and balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof snow shedding if necessary. G. Regulations: All structures shall have class A roof assemblies or shall have class A roof covering materials, as defined by the adopted building code. The use of concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt shingle, fiberglass shingle, and built up tar and gravel roofing may be permitted. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced with a low gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including, but not limited to, a standing seam). Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, when permitted, shall be designed to provide visual relief through texture, dimension and depth of appearance. The use of wood shake, wood shingles and rolled roofing shall not be permitted. Two-family and multi -family dwellings shall be required to have uniform roof covering materials, except when the design review board determines that the materials are compatible, are integral to the architectural style of the structure and different materials do not share any ridges or planes, but may share a valley. 1. Nonconforming Structures: All structures that do not have a class A roof assembly or class A roof covering material, or structures with wood shake or wood shingles shall replace the roof covering as follows: a. Additions: All additions affecting roof area shall trigger compliance of the roof structure of a single- family dwelling, a side of a two-family dwelling, or the entire multiple -family dwelling, except for a onetime exemption of up to five hundred (500) square feet of GRFA, occurring after February 6, 2007, where any addition of roof area does not share a plane or ridge with the nonconforming roof, and may only share a valley. The additional roof area shall conform to roofing regulations, and shall be deemed compatible by the design review board. b. Two -Family Structures: Upon reroofing one side of a two-family dwelling, the other side shall be required to be reroofed if the two (2) sides have roof systems that share ridges or planes. Different materials on each side of the two-family dwelling may be permitted by the design review board if the materials are deemed compatible, integral to the architectural style of the structure and share a valley or do not intersect. Developments With Multiple Structures: Upon reroofing a single structure that is part of a multistructure project with conforming roof covering materials that do not match existing materials, the conforming materials shall be deemed compatible with the existing nonconforming materials by the design review board. Upon reroofing of additional structures in the development, the materials shall match the approved conforming materials. Should the matching material no longer be manufactured, a different material may be permitted, should the materials be deemed compatible by the design review board. 2. Applicability: The provisions of this subsection shall apply to new construction, reroofing, utilization of the 250 ordinance, per section 12-15-5 of this code, and all additions except those exempt, per subsection 12-11-3C2 of this code. 3. Roofing Material: The use of any roofing material, including those not specifically identified by this section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this code, where the design review board finds: a. That the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural style, design, color, and texture; and b. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this code; and c. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the town of Vail; and H. Rooftops: Rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment, large vent stacks, elevator penthouses and similar features should be avoided; however, if necessary, shall be designed to be compatible with the overall design of the structure or screened from view of all adjacent properties. Rooftop antennas shall not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional use review as specified within the zoning code. I. Solar Energy Devices: 1. The intent of these regulations is to facilitate the installation of alternative energy sources in Vail while minimizing visual impacts. Further, these regulations are intended to limit the creation of an elevated perceived roofline by solar energy devices. 2. Solar energy devices should be installed on building facades and roof planes and oriented for energy production, except as permitted by subsection 113 of this section. In Vail, optimal solar energy device orientation for maximized energy production and adequate snow shed is typically achieved by up to a fifty degree (500) orientation. 3. Solar energy devices shall be designed and placed in a manner compatible and architecturally integrated into the overall design of the building and site, with some flexibility granted for existing structures. 4. Solar energy devices may be screened to minimize visual impact with a false facade, roof plane or parapet walls integrated into the overall design of the building. 5. Solar energy devices may project not more than four feet (4') into a required setback area. 6. Solar energy devices shall not be included in calculation of building height. 7. Solar energy devices should follow the slope direction of the roof plane upon which it is mounted. 8. Solar energy devices shall project no further from the building facade or roof plane than the minimum distance necessary to achieve up to a fifty degree (500) orientation. No portion of any solar energy device shall project more than eight feet (8') from the building facade or roof plane to which the solar energy device is attached. 9. When mounted to a roof plane with a pitch of three in twelve feet (3:12') or steeper, solar energy devices shall extend no higher than one foot (1') above the ridgeline. 10. When mounted to a roof plane, solar energy devices shall not extend beyond the roof eave. 11. Solar energy device framing, brackets and associated equipment shall be black or a color that matches adjacent building surfaces. No advertising shall be permitted on any solar energy device, framing, brackets and associated equipment. 12. Solar energy devices, framing, brackets and associated equipment shall be maintained and kept in good repair, including repainting when appropriate and other actions that contribute to attractive building aesthetics. 13. Solar energy devices may be ground mounted only when the design review board determines that the design or site planning of an existing structure creates practical difficulties in mounting a solar energy device to a building facade or roof plane to achieve energy production. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with this regulation shall not create a practical difficulty. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall not be permitted in the required setback area. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall count as site coverage. Site coverage is calculated by measuring the footprint created by vertical projection from the energy devices and associated hardware to the ground. Should ground mounted solar energy devices be adjustable, site coverage shall be calculated for the position that creates the greatest site coverage. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height above grade. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall be located and screened to minimize visual impact. J. Overhangs: Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the elements are encouraged. K. Fenestration: Fenestration should be suitable for the climate and for the orientation of the particular building elevation in which the fenestration occurs. The use of both passive and active solar energy systems is strongly encouraged. L. Duplexes: In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed as to result in each half of the structure appearing substantially similar or mirror image in design. M. Footings And Foundation: Building footings and foundations shall be designed in accordance with the minimum standards of the adopted building code. Footings and foundations shall also be designed to be responsive to the natural topography of the site, and shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize the necessary amount of excavation and site disturbance. (Ord. 26(2016) § 2: Ord. 25(2016) § 3: Ord. 5(2011) § 2: Ord. 3(2010) § 3: Ord. 3(2008) § 3: Ord. 3(2007) § 4: Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 0 A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection B of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. (Ord. 29(2005) § 82: Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-7: OUTDOOR LIGHTING:t= A. Purpose: This section establishes standards and guidelines for minimizing the unintended and undesirable side effects of outdoor lighting while encouraging the intended and desirable safety and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of these standards and guidelines to allow the minimum amount of lighting needed for the property on which the light sources are located, while protecting the legitimate privacy of neighboring properties. The standards and guidelines established in this section are also intended to promote the use of environmentally sensitive and energy efficient lighting technologies, and to promote "dark sky" lighting fixtures and installation techniques to reduce light pollution. B. Applicability: Except as provided elsewhere in this title, the design, placement, and use of all outdoor lighting within the town limits shall conform to the standards and guidelines as set forth in this section. C. Definitions: FULL CUTOFF: Light fixtures that do not emit light above the horizontal plane of the light source LIGHT SOURCE: A single artificial point source of luminescence that emits measurable radiant energy in or near the visible spectrum. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES: For the purposes of this section, properties with no more than three (3) dwelling units or employee housing units. MULTIPLE -FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES: For the purposes of this section, those with four (4) or more dwelling units or employee housing units, commercial uses, or mixed uses. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Any light source, or collection of light sources, located outside a building, including, but not limited to, light sources attached to any part of a structure, located on the surface of the ground, or located on freestanding poles. D. Lighting Regulations: 1. Quantity Of Light Fixtures: The maximum number of outdoor light sources for all properties is subject to the requirements of the adopted building codes and design review. For low density residential properties, the maximum number of light sources per lot shall be limited to one outdoor light per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area. Light sources which are no more than eighteen inches (18") above grade, as measured from the top of the fixture to the finish grade below, and are full cutoff fixtures, may be allowed in addition to the total number of permitted outdoor light sources. 2. Height Limits For Light Fixtures: Outdoor lights affixed to a structure shall not exceed the height of the roof eaves. The maximum mounting height for light sources on a pole shall not exceed twenty feet (20'). Full Cutoff: All outdoor lights shall be fully cut off to not emit light above the horizontal plane of the light source. Outdoor lights must be Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) "full cutoff' class, International Dark -Sky Association (IDA) approved, or have similarly recognized verification of being full cutoff. Lights must be installed and maintained in such a manner that the full cutoff is effective. Exceptions: The following outdoor lights may be nonfull cutoff: a. Uplighting fully contained by an overhanging building element that prevents the light from emitting upward to the sky, when the light source is shielded from the sides. b. Uplighting for flags when the light source is shielded from the sides. c. Lights with a gas flame as the sole light source. d. Lights specifically recommended by the Vail comprehensive plan. 4. Lighting Direction: All outdoor lighting shall be directed at the object intended to be illuminated and away from adjacent properties and public ways. Outdoor lights shall be directed downward, unless contained by overhanging building or landscape elements with the light source shielded from the sides. Uplighting is allowed for flags when the light source is shielded from the sides. 5. Energy Efficiency: All outdoor lighting shall comply with the town's adopted energy conservation code. E. Lighting Guidelines: 1. Compatibility: All outdoor lighting fixtures, fixture locations, and the color and intensity on the lighting should be aesthetically compatible with the site and structures on which they are located, the character of the surroundings, and with Vail's environment. Outdoor lighting must also be consistent with any applicable design guidelines outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan. 2. Light Pollution: All outdoor lights should be designed, installed, and maintained to minimize the contribution of outdoor lighting to nighttime light pollution. Examples of low light pollution fixtures are available from lighting manufacturers and organizations such as the International Dark -Sky Association (IDA). 3. Energy Efficiency: Outdoor lighting should use the least number of light sources necessary to achieve the safety and aesthetic purposes for the lighting. Outdoor lighting should utilize energy efficient light sources of the lowest wattage feasible, and utilize energy efficient technologies. Outdoor lighting should also be operated and maintained to eliminate any unnecessary daytime use and to reduce nighttime use during nonbusiness hours and periods of limited residential activity. F. Prohibited Outdoor Lights: 1. Lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation. 2. Lights affixed to the top of the roof of a structure. 3. Neon, or similar gas filled, lights. 4. Laser source lights. 5. Searchlights. 6. Lights attached to vegetation, except decorative holiday lights. 7. Any lighting that could interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare. G. Exemptions: The standards of this section shall not apply to: 1. Decorative holiday lights. 2. Sign illumination, as set forth in title 11 of this code. 3. Official government lighting, other than those owned and maintained by the town of Vail, installed for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. 4. Outdoor lights associated with an approved special events permit. 5. Outdoor lights associated with an art in public places board (AIPP) approved public art display. 6. Temporary construction zone work lighting associated with an approved building permit or design review approval (construction zone security and egress lights are not exempt from the provisions of this section). 7. Lighting identifying hazards or road construction. (Ord. 21(2008) § 1) 14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL:Z= A. Various natural vegetation zones exist within the Gore Valley as a result of the form and aspects of the land itself. The north facing slopes within the valley are typically heavily wooded with spruce, pine and aspen and generally receive less direct sunlight than the drier south facing slopes which typically consist of sage, aspen and other vegetation tolerant of drier conditions. The valley floor which is adjacent to Gore Creek consists of a wide variety of trees and shrubs adapted to the relatively fertile soil and natural availability of water. The goal of any landscape plan should be to preserve and enhance the natural landscape character of the area in which it is to be located and serve as an aid in fire prevention and protection. The landscape scale and overall landscape design shall be developed so that new vegetation is integral with the natural landscape and the inherent form, line, color and texture of the local plant communities. Ro,se the The major objective of the landscaping is to help reduce the scale of new structures, a -Rd to assist in the screening of structures, to reduce the risk to life and structures from the intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposure and fire exposures from adjacent structures, and to mitigate structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels. the The planting of large sized, well spaced plant materials is encouraged. Fire wise plant materials are eRGsUraged required due to their ability to resist fire. Trees she, dd shall be maintained through limbing and pruning in order to prevent limbs from being too close to structures and other plant materials. Special care should be taken in selecting the types of plants to use when designing a landscape plan. Final selection should be based upon the soils and climate, ease of establishment, suitability for the specific use desired, ability to deter the spread of fires and the level of maintenance that can be provided. New planting shall use plants that are indigenous to the Rocky Mountain alpine and subalpine zones or are capable of being introduced into these zones. A recommended list of plant materials, some indigenous to the Vail area, is on file with the department of community development. Also indicated on the list are fire wise plant materials which are suitable for planting within the Vail area. The minimum sizes of landscape materials acceptable are as follows: Required trees: Deciduous Fconifers Required shrubs r 2 inch caliper foot -F F- Foundation shrubs shall have a minimum #5 gallon container height of 18 inches at time of planting. B. Landscape design shall be developed to locate new plantings Op ^r.+or +„ o.,+o„,+ o.,;S+iAg ,.anep„ edges Gr plaRt8d in natural looking groups and shall be designed and installed in conformance with the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. Additions or alterations of less than 500 square feet of Gross Floor Area that are exempt, per Section 14-10-5 B of this code shall also be exempt from conformance with the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. Geometric plantings, evenly spaced rows of trees, and other formal landscape patterns shall be avoided. C. Particular attention shall be given the landscape design of off street parking lots to reduce adverse impacts upon living areas within the proposed development, upon adjacent properties, and upon public spaces with regard to noise, lights, and visual impact. D. All landscaping shall be provided with a method of irrigation suitable to ensure the continued maintenance of planted materials. E. Whenever possible, natural drainage patterns upon the site shall not be modified. Negative drainage impacts upon adjacent sites shall not be allowed. F. Runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs and pavement areas shall be directed to natural or improved drainage channels or dispersed into shallow sloping vegetated areas. G. Slope of cut and fill banks shall be determined by soil characteristics for the specific site to avoid erosion, and promote revegetation opportunities, but in any case shall be limited to a maximum of two to one (2:1) slope. H. Measures shall be taken to retain all eroded soil material on site during construction, control both ground water and surface water runoff, and to permanently stabilize all disturbed slopes and drainage features upon completion of construction. I. All plants shall be planted in a good quality topsoil mix of a type and amount recommended by the American Landscape Contractor Association and the Colorado Nurseryman's Association. J. All plantings must be mulched with materials listed in the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines, unless otherwise exempt per Section 14-10-5 B of this code. K. Paving near a tree to be saved must contain a plan for a "tree vault" in order to ensure the ability of the roots to receive air. (Ord. 3(2007) § 5: Ord., 9-21-1999) L. Defensible space shall be created and maintained in an area extending from the perimeter or prosection of the building or structure to a radius of 100 feet or the lot lines, whichever is less. Defensible space and landscaping shall comply with Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. 14-10-9: FENCES, HEDGES, WALLS, AND SCREENING:Z= A. Placement: The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing landforms and fit into land massing rather than arbitrarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be encouraged except to screen trash areas, utility equipment, etc. B. Design: Design of fences, walls, and other structural landscape features shall be of materials compatible with the site and the materials of the structures on the site. Retaining walls and cribbing should utilize natural materials such as wood timbers, logs, rocks, or textured, color tinted concrete. No chainlink fences shall be allowed except as temporary construction fences or as required for recreational facilities. C. Setbacks Observed: All accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls and landscaping, or ground level site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located within the required minimum setback lines on each site. Recreational amenities may be exempted by the design review board if it determines that their location is not detrimental environmentally and/or aesthetically. D. Sight Triangle: To minimize traffic hazards at street intersections by improving visibility for drivers of converging vehicles in any district where setbacks are required, no fence or structure over three feet (3') in height shall be permitted within the triangular portion of a corner lot measured from the point of intersection of the lot lines abutting the streets a distance of thirty feet (30') along each lot line. E. Height Limitations: Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet (3') in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet (6) in height in any other portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls or landscaping screens may be authorized by the administrator when necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained. (Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS: 0 A. Design of accessory structures upon a site shall be compatible with the design and materials of the main structure or structures upon the site. B. Accessory buildings generally should be attached to the main building either directly or by means of a continuous wall, femme or similar feature of the same or a complementary material as the main building's exterior finish. C. All utility service systems shall be installed underground. Any utility system the operation of which requires aboveground installation shall be located and/or screened so as not to detract from the overall site design quality. D. All utility meters shall be enclosed or screened from public view. E. Service areas, outdoor storage, and garbage storage shall be screened from adjacent properties, structures, streets, and other public areas by fences, berms, or landscaping. F. Adequate trash storage areas shall be provided. There shall be year round access to all trash storage areas which shall not be used for any other purpose. G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards: 1. All wall and roofing materials shall be constructed of rigid material and shall not include polyethylene or other similar flexible films. 2. All nontranslucent elements including framing and doors shall be painted to be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. 3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with section 14-10-7 of this chapter. 4. All greenhouses shall be subject to the development standards for the zone district for which they are located. Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items, vehicles, watercraft or other items not associated with the cultivation of food or ornamental crops. H. Hoop houses/cold frames, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards: 1. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be four feet (4') in height or less and be one hundred twenty (120) square feet or less in floor area. 2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the deck (not ground level) setback requirements as defined in section 14-2-1 of this title and summarized in section 14-8-1 of this title. 3. One hoop house/cold frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit. 4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review. 5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of any kind. (Ord. 26(2016) § 3: Ord., 9-21- 1999) 14-10-11: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS: t 0 A. Purpose: 1. To protect the health and safety of the inhabitants of the town by setting forth requirements for the installation of satellite dish antennas. 2. To protect and support the aesthetic concerns of the town, a resort community which must remain aesthetically pleasing to visitors to remain economically viable. 3. To provide the protection set forth in subsections Al and A2 of this section in the least restrictive manner possible. B. Application; Review: Satellite dish antennas shall comply with all the requirements set forth herein. Person or persons wishing to install a satellite dish antenna within the town shall submit an application to the department of community development for review. The application shall set forth the following: 1. Completed design review board application form. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of the satellite dish antenna. 3. Description of the satellite dish antenna (i.e., size, design, materials, etc.). 4. Color sample (if applicable). 5. Landscape plan (if applicable). 6. An improvement location certificate and/or a preliminary title report. 7. Elevations, perspectives or renderings if deemed applicable by the staff of the department of community development. C. Compliance With Requirements: 1. No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be allowed on any lot as delineated on the official town zoning map. 2. The temporary use and/or installation of a satellite dish antenna shall be limited to a maximum period of one day. Only three (3) temporary installations shall be allowed per business or residence per year. 3. The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen feet (15'). 4. The maximum size of any satellite dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be limited to nine feet (9') in diameter. Satellite dish antennas serving multi -family dwellings shall be limited to a maximum of twelve feet (12') in diameter. 5. No advertising, logos or identification shall be allowed on any satellite dish antenna. 6. Satellite dish antennas shall comply with the existing setback requirements of the zone district in which the satellite dish antenna is installed. Satellite dish antennas shall be prohibited in easements and public rights of way. No portion of a satellite dish antenna or its supporting structure shall encroach into the vertical plane as drawn from an existing easement or setback line. 7. Issuance of a building permit from the department of community development shall be required prior to the installation of any satellite dish antenna. 8. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be notified of any application for the installation of a satellite dish antenna. Notification procedures shall be as outlined in section 12-14-19 of this code. Names and mailing addresses of adjacent property owners and of owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be provided to the department of community development by the applicant. 9. Due to the special aesthetic importance of the core areas of the town, exterior installations of satellite dish antennas in commercial cores 1 and 2 and in Lionshead mixed use 1 and 2 shall be permitted only if screened by some type of enclosing structure. Said structures required to enclose a satellite dish antenna in these areas shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations and shall be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. D. Design Guidelines: It is the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that the visibility of a satellite dish antenna from any public right of way or adjacent properties be reduced to the highest degree possible. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how the satellite dish antenna installation complies with these guidelines. The following guidelines shall be used by the design review board in evaluating applications for satellite dish antennas: 1. All wiring and cable related to a satellite dish antenna shall be installed underground. 2. The use of mesh satellite dish antennas is highly encouraged because of their ability to be more sensitively integrated on a site or structure. 3. The use of appropriate colors shall be required to provide for a more sensitive installation when integrating a satellite dish antenna onto a site or structure. Color selection for a satellite dish antenna should be made with respect to specific characteristics on a site or structure. Unpainted surfaces and satellite dish antennas with reflective surfaces shall not be allowed. 4. Locations of satellite dish antennas shall be made so as to ensure that the satellite dish antenna is screened from view from any public right of way or adjacent property to the highest degree possible. In addition to effective site planning, screening a satellite dish antenna may be accomplished through the use of landscaping materials, fencing, existing structures, subgrade placements or other means that both screen the satellite dish antenna and do not appear unnatural on the site. 5. Satellite dish antennas on or attached to existing structures shall be permitted provided the satellite dish antenna is architecturally integrated into the structure. Effective use of color shall be required to ensure compatibility between the satellite dish antenna and existing structure. The use of a mesh material shall be strongly encouraged when attempting to integrate a satellite dish antenna onto an existing structure. 6. Landscaping or other site improvements intended to screen a satellite dish antenna proposed on any application shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit to install a satellite dish antenna. A letter of credit equal to one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the costs of installing landscaping or site improvements may be submitted to the town if seasonal weather conditions prohibit the installation of landscaping or site improvements. All improvements required by the design review board for the purpose of reducing the visibility of satellite dish antennas shall remain in place so long as the satellite dish antennas remain in place unless permission to alter or remove said improvements is obtained from the design review board. All satellite dish antennas and all improvements required by the design review board to reduce the visibility of satellite dish antennas shall be adequately maintained and repaired and shall not be allowed to become dilapidated or fall into a state of disrepair. (Ord. 2(2007) § 10: Ord., 9-21-1999) 14-10-12: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT:(t= Communications antennas and any associated appurtenant equipment should be integrated into existing principal buildings and structures. All antennas and appurtenant equipment shall be located and screened so as not to detract from the overall site design quality. (Ord. 12(2008) § 28) ATTACHMENT F ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1; TITLE 12, CHAPTER _; AND TITLE 14, CHAPTER _ OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO INCORPORATE AND ADOPT, BY REFERENCE, SECTIONS OF THE 2018 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE CODE. WHEREAS, ...... WHEREAS, ...... WHEREAS, ...... WHEREAS, ...... NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1. Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following: 10-1-2: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE The following amendments are hereby made to the International Building Code, 2018 Edition: Chapter 2 DEFINITIONS: Chapter 2 is amended with the addition of the following definitions: "ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A building or structure used to shelter or support any material, equipment, chattel or occupancy other than a habitable building. CODE OFFICIAL. The official designated by the jurisdiction to interpret and enforce this code, or the code official's authorized representative. FIRE CHIEF. The chief officer or chief officer's authorized representative of the fire department serving the jurisdiction. FIRE -RESISTANCE -RATED CONSTRUCTION. The use of materials and systems in the design and construction of a building or structure to safeguard against the spread of fire within a building or structure and the spread of fire to or from buildings or structures to the wildland-urban interface area. IGNITION -RESISTANT BUILDING MATERIAL. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently so as to reduce losses from wildland-urban interface conflagrations under worst-case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames, as prescribed in Chapter 7A. IGNITION -RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. A schedule of additional requirements for construction in wildland-urban interface areas based on fire hazard levels. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. A type of construction in which exterior walls are constructed of solid wood members and where the smallest horizontal dimension of each solid wood member is at least 6 inches (152 mm). NONCOMBUSTIBLE. As applied to building construction material means a material that, in the form in which it is used, is either one of the following: 1. Material of which no part will ignite and burn when subjected to fire. Any material conforming to ASTM E136 shall be considered noncombustible within the meaning of this section. 2. Material having a structural base of noncombustible material as defined in Item 1 above, with a surfacing material not over 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) thick, which has a flame spread index of 50 or less. Flame spread index as used herein refers to a flame spread index obtained according to tests conducted as specified in ASTM E84 or UL 723. "Noncombustible" does not apply to surface finish materials. Material required to be noncombustible for reduced clearances to flues, heating appliances or other sources of high temperature shall refer to material conforming to Item 1. No material shall be classified as noncombustible that is subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread index, beyond the limits herein established, through the effects of age, moisture or other atmospheric condition. UNENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. An accessory structure without a complete exterior wall system enclosing the area under the roof or floor above. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE AREA. That geographical area where structures and other human development meets or intermingles with wildland or vegetative fuels." Chapter 7A Fire -Resistive Construction: Chapter 7A is added to read as follows.. "CHAPTER 7A FIRE -RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION SECTION 7A01 SCOPE 7A01.1 General. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, repair, maintenance and use of any building, structure or premises within the wildland-urban interface areas of the Town of Vail. Exceptions: 1. Additions or alterations less than 500 gross square feet in size. 2. Repair or replacement of less than 25% of a deck surface or structure. 3. Accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet in floor area where located not less than 30 feet from buildings containing habitable spaces. 4. Agricultural buildings located not less than 30 feet from buildings containing habitable spaces. Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this chapter for new buildings or structures. 7A01.2 Objective. The objective of this chapter is to establish minimum regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding of life and for property protection. Regulations in this chapter are intended to mitigate the risk to life and structures from intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures and to mitigate structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels. The extent of this regulation is intended to be tiered commensurate with the relative level of hazard present. The unrestricted use of property in wildland-urban interface areas is a potential threat to life and property from fire and resulting erosion. Safeguards to prevent the occurrence of fires and to provide adequate fire protection facilities to control the spread of fire in wildland-urban interface areas shall be in accordance with this chapter. This chapter shall supplement the jurisdiction's building and fire codes to provide for special regulations to mitigate the fire- and life -safety hazards of the wildland- urban interface areas. 7A01.3 Additions or alterations. Additions or alterations shall be permitted to be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all of the requirements of this chapter, provided that the addition or alteration conforms to that required for a new building or structure. SECTION 7A02 APPLICABILITY 7A02.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall apply. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this chapter specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall apply. 7A02.2 Existing conditions. The legal occupancy or use of any building, structure or condition existing on the date of adoption of this chapter shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in the International Fire Code. SECTION 7A03 COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES 7A03.1 Practical difficulties. Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the code official is authorized to grant modifications for individual cases upon application, in writing, by the owner or owner's authorized agent. The code official shall first find that a special individual reason makes enforcement of the provisions of this chapter impractical, that the modification is in conformance to the intent and purpose of this chapter, and that the modification does not lessen any fire protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered into the appropriate permitting files. 7A03.2 Technical assistance. To determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises subject to the inspection of the code official, the code official is authorized to require the owner, the owner's authorized agent or the person in possession or control of the building or premises to provide, without charge to the jurisdiction, a technical opinion and report. The opinion and report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, specialist, laboratory or fire safety specialty organization acceptable to the code official and the owner or the owner's authorized agent, and shall analyze the fire safety of the design, operation or use of the building or premises, the facilities and appurtenances situated thereon and fuel management for purposes of establishing fire hazard severity to recommend necessary changes. 7A03.3 Alternative materials or methods. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method not specifically prescribed by this chapter, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method shall be approved where the building official in concurrence with the fire chief finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this chapter, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, not less than the equivalent of that prescribed in this chapter in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or method is not approved, the building official shall respond in writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved. SECTION 7A04 SPECIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS 7A04.1 General. Buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with this section, unless previously exempted in Section 7A01.1. 7A04.2 Fire -resistance rated construction. Where this chapter requires 1 -hour fire -resistance -rated construction, the fire -resistance rating of building elements, components or assemblies shall be determined in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E 119 or UL 263. Exceptions: 1. The fire -resistance rating of building elements, components or assemblies based on the prescriptive designs prescribed in Section 721. 2. The fire -resistance rating of building elements, components or assemblies based on the calculation procedures in accordance with Section 722. SECTION 7A05 IGNITION -RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIAL 7A05.1 General. Buildings and structures hereafter constructed, modified or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall meet the construction requirements in accordance with ignition -resistant construction in accordance with Section 7A06. Materials required to be ignition -resistant materials shall comply with the requirements of Section 7A05.2. 7A05.2 Ignition -resistant building material. Ignition -resistant building material shall comply with any one of the following: 1. Material shall be tested on all sides with the extended ASTM E 84 (UL 723) test or ASTM E 2768, except panel products shall be permitted to test only the front and back faces. Panel products shall be tested with a ripped or cut longitudinal gap of 1/8 inch (3.2 mm). Materials that, when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E 84 or UL 723 for a test period of 30 minutes, or with ASTM E 2768, comply with the following: 1.1. Flame spread. Material shall exhibit a flame spread index not exceeding 25 and shall not show evidence of progressive combustion following the extended 30- minute test. 1.2. Flame front. Material shall exhibit a flame front that does not progress more than 10'/2 feet (3200 mm) beyond the centerline of the burner at any time during the extended 30 -minute test. 1.3. Weathering. Ignition -resistant building materials shall maintain their performance in accordance with this section under conditions of use. Materials shall meet the performance requirements for weathering (including exposure to temperature, moisture and ultraviolet radiation) contained in the following standards, as applicable to the materials and the conditions of use: 1.3.1. Method A "Test Method for Accelerated Weathering of Fire - Retardant -Treated Wood for Fire Testing" in ASTM D 2898, for fire- retardant -treated wood, wood -plastic composite and plastic lumber materials. 1.3.2. ASTM D 7032 for wood -plastic composite materials. 1.3.3. ASTM D 6662 for plastic lumber materials. 1.4. Identification — materials shall bear identification showing fire test results. Exception: Materials composed of a combustible core and a noncombustible exterior covering, made from=either aluminum at a minimum 0.019 inch (0.48 mm) thickness or corrosion -resistant steel at a minimum 0.0149 inch (0.38 mm) thickness shall not be required to be tested with a ripped or cut longitudinal gap. 2. Noncombustible material. Material that complies with the requirements for noncombustible materials. 3. Fire -retardant -treated wood. Fire -retardant -treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2. 4. Materials meeting the following standards of quality. 4.1. SFM Standard 12-7A-1, Exterior Wall Siding and Sheathing. A fire resistance test standard consisting of a 150 kW intensity direct flame exposure for al 0 -minute duration. 4.2. SFM Standard 12-7A-2, Exterior Windows. A fire resistance test standard consisting of a 150kW intensity direct flame exposure for a 8 -minute duration. 4.3. SFM Standard 12-7A-3, Horizontal Projection Underside. A fire resistance test standard consisting of a 300kW intensity direct flame exposure for al 0 -minute duration. 4.4. SFM Standard 12-7A-4, Decking. A two-part test consisting of a heat release rate (Part A) deck assembly combustion test with an under deck exposure of 80 kW intensity direct flame for a 3 - minute duration and a (Part B) sustained deck assembly combustion test consisting of a deck upper surface burning ember exposure with a 12 mph wind for 40 minutes using a 2.21b (1 kg) burning "Class A" size 12"x12"x2.25" (300mm x 300mm x 57mm) roof test brand. 4.5. SFM Standard 12 -7A -4A, Decking Alternate Method A. A heat release deck assembly combustion test with an under deck exposure of 80kW intensity direct flame for a 3 -minute duration. 4.6. SFM Standard 12-7A-5, Ignition -resistant Material. A generic building material surface burning flame spread test standard consisting of an extended 30 minute ASTM E84 or UL 723 test method as is used for fire -retardant -treated wood. SECTION 7A06 IGNITION -RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION 7A06.1 General. Ignition -resistant construction shall be in accordance with Sections 7A06.2 through 7A06.11. 7A06.2 Roof covering. All roof coverings shall comply with Chapter 15, as amended. 7A06.2.1 Roof valleys. Where provided, valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019 inch (0.48 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) corrosion - resistant metal installed over a minimum 36 -inch -wide (914 mm) underlayment consisting of one layer of 72 -pound (32.4 kg) mineral - surfaced, non -perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D 3909 running the full length of the valley. 7A06.3 Protection of Eaves. Eaves and soffits shall be protected on the exposed underside by ignition -resistant building materials or by materials approved for not less than 1 -hour fire -resistance -rated construction, 2 -inch (51 mm) nominal dimension lumber, or 1-inch (25 mm) nominal fire-retardant-treated lumber or 3/4 —inch (19.1 mm) nominal fire-retardant- treated plywood, identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2. Fascias are required and shall be protected on the back-side by ignition-resistant building materials or by materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or 2-inch (51 mm) nominal dimension lumber. 7A06.4 Gutters and downspouts. Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of noncombustible material. 7A06.5 Exterior walls. Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with one of the following methods and all such material shall extend from the top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing: 1. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction on the exterior side. 2. Approved noncombustible materials. 3. Heavy timber or log wall construction. 4. Ignition-resistant building materials complying with Section 7A05.2 on the exterior side. Exception: Combustible siding materials not complying with Section 7A05.2 may be used but shall not cover more that 33% of a given wall and shall not be within 5 feet of existing grade. Combustible siding which has a profile that may allow ember intrusion such as wood shake or wood shingle is prohibited. 7A06.6 Underfloor enclosure. Buildings or structures shall have underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls in accordance with Section 7A06.5. Exception: Complete enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or heavy timber construction or fire- retardant-treated wood. The fire-retardant-treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2. 7A06.7 Appendages and projections. Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, shall be not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction, heavy timber construction or constructed of one of the following: 1. Approved noncombustible materials. 2. Fire-retardant-treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2. 3. Ignition-resistant building materials in accordance with Section 7A05.2. 7A06.8 Exterior doors. Exterior doors shall be approved noncombustible construction, Standard solid core wood not less than 1 3/4 inches thick (44 mm), or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes. Tempered glass doors are permissible. Exception: Vehicle access doors. 7A06.9 Vents. Attic ventilation openings, foundation or underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches (0.0929 m2 ) each. Such vents shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion -resistant materials with openings not to exceed 1/4inch (6.4 mm),or perforated noncombustible materials with perforations not to Exceed '/4 inch(6.4mm) or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. 7A06.9.1 Vent locations. Attic ventilation openings shall not be located in the inner two thirds of soffits, eave overhangs, or other overhang areas. Gable end and dormer vents shall be located not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from lot lines. Underfloor ventilation openings shall be located as close to grade as practical. 7A06.10 Detached accessory structures. Detached accessory structures located less than 30 feet (15 240 mm) from a building containing habitable space shall have exterior walls constructed with materials approved for not less than 1 - hour fire- resistance -rated construction, heavy timber, log wall construction, or constructed with approved noncombustible materials or ignition resistant building materials in accordance with Section 7A05.2. The fire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2. 7A06.10.1 Underfloor areas. Where the detached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent, the area below the structure shall have underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches (152 mm) of the ground, with exterior wall construction in accordance with Section 7A06.5 or underfloor protection in accordance with Section 7A06.6. Exception: The enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1 -hour fire -resistance -rated construction or heavy -timber construction or fire- retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The fire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2. 7A06.11 Spark arrestors. Chimneys serving fireplaces, barbecues, incinerators or decorative heating appliances in which solid or liquid fuel is used, shall be provided with a spark arrester. Spark arresters shall be constructed of woven or welded wire screening of 12 USA standard gage wire (0.1046 inch) (2.66 mm) having openings not exceeding 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). 7A06.11.1 Net free area. The net free area of the spark arrester shall be not less than four times the net free area of the outlet of the chimney." 10-1-3: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE The following amendments are hereby made to the International Residential Code, 2018 Edition: Section R302.15 Additional fire -resistive construction requirements: Section R302.15 is added as follows: "R302.15 Additional fire -resistive construction requirements. The provisions of Chapter 7A of the International Building Code, as adopted and amended, shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, repair, maintenance and use of any building, structure or premises within the wildland-urban interface areas of the Town of Vail. Exceptions: 1. Additions or alterations less than 500 gross square feet in size. 2. Repair or replacement of less than 25% of a deck surface or structure. 3. Accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet in floor area where located not less than 30 feet from buildings containing habitable spaces. 4. Agricultural buildings located not less than 30 feet from buildings containing habitable spaces. Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this chapter for new buildings or structures." SECTION 2. Chapter _ of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following: SECTION 3. Chapter _ of Title 14 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following: SECTION 4. The Codes adopted and amended by this Ordinance shall be effective for all Building Permit Applications received by the Town of Vail's Community Development Department on or after , 2019. SECTION 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 6: The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. SECTION 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this _ day of , 2019 and a public hearing and second reading of this Ordinance set for the _ day of , 2019 in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. David Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagle, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this _ day of , 2019. David Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagle, Town Clerk DEFINITIONS ATTACHMENT G [RB] CLADDING. The exterior materials that cover the sur- through the spread of disease by sewage, industrial fluids or face of the building envelope that is directly loaded by the waste. wind. [RE] CONTINUOUS AIR BARRIER. For the definition [MP] CLEANOUT. An opening in the drainage system used applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. for the removal of possible obstruction and located to allow [RE] CONTINUOUS INSULATION (ei). For the defini- for access. tion applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RE] CLIMATE ZONE. A geographical region based on [1VIP] CONTINUOUS WASTE. A drain from two or more climatic criteria as specified in this code. For the definition similar adjacent fixtures connected to a single trap. applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RB] CLOSET. A small room or chamber used for storage. [RB] COLLAPSIBLE SOILS. Soils that exhibit volumetric reduction in response to partial or full wetting under load. [MP] COLLECTION PIPE. Unpressurized pipe used within the collection system that drains on-site nonpotable water or rainwater to a storage tank by gravity. [MP] COMBINATION WASTE AND VENT SYSTEM. A specially designed system of waste piping embodying the horizontal wet venting of one or more sinks, lavatories or floor drains by means of a common waste and vent pipe ade- tel ze e aTbe t above the flow e f the drain. [RB] COMBUSTIBLEL. Any material not defined as noncombustib ON provided to fuel -burn- ing equipment including air for fuel combustion, draft hood dilution and ventilation of the equipment enclosure. [MP] CONTROL, LIMIT. An automatic control responsive to changes in liquid flow or level, pressure, or temperature for limiting the operation of an appliance. [MP] CONTROL, PRIMARY SAFETY. A safety control responsive directly to flame properties that senses the pres- ence or absence of flame and, in event of ignition failure or unintentional flame extinguishment, automatically causes shutdown of mechanical equipment. [MP] CONVECTOR. A system incorporating a heating ele- ment in an enclosure in which air enters an opening below the heating element, is heated and leaves the enclosure through an opening located above the heating element. [RB] -CORE. The lightweight middle section of a structural insulated panel, composed of foam plastic insulation, that provides the link between the two facing shells. [RB] CORROSION RESISTANCE.. The ability of a material to withstand deterioration of its surface or its properties where exposed to its environment. [MP] COMMON VENT. A single pipe venting two trap ["I COURT. A space, open and unobstructed to the sky, arms within the same branch interval, either back-to-back or located at or above grade level on a lot and bounded on three one above the other. or more sides by walls or a building. [RB] COMPRESSIBLE SOILS. Soils that exhibit volumet- ric reduction in response to the application of load even in the absence of wetting or drying. [MP] CONDENSATE. The liquid that separates from a gas due to a reduction in temperature; for example, water that condenses from flue gases and water that condenses from air circulating through the cooling coil in air conditioning equip- ment. [MP] CONDENSING APPLIANCE. An appliance that condenses water generated by the burning of fuels. [RB] CONDITIONED AIR. Air treated to control its tem- perature, relative humidity or quality. [RE] CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA. For the definition applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RE] CONDITIONED SPACE. For the definition applica- ble in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RB] CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. Written, graphic and pictorial documents prepared or assembled for describing the design, location and physical characteristics of the ele- ments of a project necessary for obtaining a building permit. Construction drawings shall be drawn to an appropriate scale. [MP] CONTAMINATION. A high -hazard or health -hazard impairment of the quality of the potable water that creates an actual hazard to the public health through poisoning or [RB] CRAWL SPACE. An underfloor space that is not a basement. [RE] CRAWL SPACE WALL. For the definition applica- ble in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RB] CRIPPLE WALL. A framed wall extending from the top of the foundation to the underside of the floor framing of the first story above grade plane. [MP] CROSS CONNECTION. Any connection between two otherwise separate piping' systems that allows a flow from one system to the other. [RB] CROSS -LAMINATED TIMBER. A prefabricated engineered wood product consisting of not less than three layers of solid -sawn lumber or structural composite lumber where the adjacent layers are cross -oriented and bonded with structural adhesive to form a solid wood element. [RE] CURTAIN WALL. For the definition applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6. [RB] DALLE GLASS. A decorative composite glazing material made of individual pieces of glass that are embedded in a cast matrix of concrete or epoxy. [MP] DAMPER, VOLUME. A device that will restrict, retard or direct the flow of air in any duct, or the products of combustion of heat -producing equipment, vent connector, vent or chimney. 14 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE®. Solid. A masonry unit with a net cross-sectional area in every plane parallel to the loadbearing surface that is 75 percent or more of its cross-sectional area measured in the same plane. [RB] MEAN ROOF HEIGHT. The average of the roof eave height and the height to the highest point on the roof surface, except that eave height shall be used for roof angle of less than or equal to 10 degrees (0.18 rad). [MP] MECHANICAL DRAFT SYSTEM. A venting sys- tem_ designed to remove flue or vent gases by mechanical means, that consists of an induced draft portion under non - positive static pressure or a forced draft portion under posi- tive static pressure. Forced draft venting system. A portion of a venting sys- tem using a fan or other mechanical means to cause the removal of flue or vent gases under positive static pres- sure: Induced draft venting system. A portion of a venting system using a fan or other mechanical means to cause the removal of flue or vent gases under nonpositive static vent pressure. Power venting system. A portion of a venting system using a fan or other mechanical means to cause the removal of flue or vent gases under positive static vent pressure. [MJ MECHANICAL EXHAUST SYSTEM. A system for removing air from a room or space by mechanical means. DD) MECHANICAL JOINT. 1. A connection between pipes, fittings or pipes and fit- tings that is not welded, brazed, caulked, soldered, sol- vent cemented or heat -fused. 2. A general form of gas- or liquid -tight connections obtained by the joining of parts through a positive hold- ing mechanical construction such as, but not limited to, flanged, screwed, clamped or flared connections. IMP] MECHANICAL SYSTEM. A system specifically addressed and regulated in this code and composed of com- ponents,, devices, appliances and equipment. [] METAL ROOF PANEL. An interlocking metal sheet 'having an installed weather exposure of not less than 3 square feet (0.28 m2) per sheet. '[te] METAL ROOF SHINGLE. An interlocking metal 'sheet'having an installed weather exposure less than 3 square feet (0.28 in) per sheet. IRBlI' ZZANINE. An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any story. MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF COVERING. One or layers of polymer modified asphalt sheets. The sheet gals shall be fully adhered or mechanically attached to ibstrate or held in place with an approved ballast layer: MULTIPLE -STATION SMOKE ALARM. Two or single -station alarm devices that are capable of inter- action such that actuation of one causes all integral or ate audible alarms to operate. DEFINITIONS [RB] NAILABLE SUBSTRATE. A product or material such as framing, sheathing or furring, composed of wood or wood -based materials, or other materials and fasteners pro- viding equivalent fastener withdrawal resistance. [MP] NATURAL DRAFT SYSTEM. A venting system designed to remove flue or vent gases under nonpositive static vent pressure entirely by natural draft. [RB] NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD. The heartwood of the following species with the exception that an occasional piece with corner sapwood is permitted if 90 percent or more of the width of each side on which it occurs is heartwood. Decay resistant. Redwood, cedar, black locust and black walnut. Termite resistant. Alaska yellow cedar, redwood, Eastern red Weste d cedar including all sapwood of esters red c—� [RB] NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. Materials that pass the test procedure for defining noncombustibility of ele- mentary materials set forth in ASTM E136. f e eake ads o stairs and of landings at the top of stairway flights. [RB] OCCUPIED SPACE. The total area of all buildings or structures on any lot or parcel of ground projected on a hori- zontal plane, excluding permitted projections as allowed by this code. [MP] OFFSET. A combination of fittings that makes two changes in direction, bringing one section of the pipe out of line and into a line parallel with the other section. [MP] ON-SITE NONPOTABLE WATER REUSE SYS- TEMS. Water systems for the collection, treatment, storage, distribution, and reuse of nonpotable water generated on site, including but not limited to graywater systems. This defini- tion does not include rainwater harvesting systems. [RE] OPAQUE DOOR. For the definition applicable in Chapter 11, see Section NI101.6. [RB] OWNER. Any person, agent, firm or corporation hav- ing a legal or equitable interest in the property. [RB] PAN FLASHING. Corrosion -resistant flashing at the base of an opening that is integrated into the building exterior wall to direct water to the exterior and is premanufactured, fabricated, formed or applied at the job site. [RB] PANEL THICKNESS. Thickness of core plus two layers of structural wood panel facings. [MP] PELLET FUEL -BURNING APPLIANCE. A closed combustion, vented appliance equipped with a fuel feed mechanism for burning processed pellets of solid fuel of a specified size and composition. [MP] PELLET VENT. A vent listed and labeled for use with a listed pellet fuel -burning appliance. [RB] PERFORMANCE CATEGORY. A designation of wood structural panels as related to the panel performance used in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 8. RESIDENTIAL CODE® 21 W LANDSCAPING _ DEFENSIBLE SPACE y - NON-COMBUSTIBLE �•. � ,�� , LANDSCAPE ZONE• i TYPES OF GROUND COVER 4 STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ;• '''' T {_ '. LANDSCAPE � MAINTENANCE PROPERTY I SELF ASSESSMENT F '' '• 4 Agog - ,-1 � e •"ti - J 77, mib 01= VAIInk 01 L x �A� + r �. - # FIRE-RESISTANT LANDSCAPING Vail is located in an ecosystem that has adapted to infrequent but severe wildfires. The wonderful views and abundant forests that brought us all to the valley can also be a major threat to our safety and property. Because embers are the leading cause of home ignition during wildfires, all areas of the community are at risk. Residents and property owners can take some simple but effective mitigation steps to ensure that their homes have a greater chance of surviving a wildfire. During a wildfire everything on your property — landscaping, cars and the home itself — has the potential to become fuel for the fire. Fire-resistant landscaping is one step property owners can take to decrease these hazards. A home's defensible space zone starts at the foundation wall and extends out to the property line. If grasses, brush, trees and other common forest fuels are removed, reduced or modified to lessen a fire's intensity and keep fire away from the home, the probability that the home will survive a wildfire is increased. During a wildfire, a home with little or no defensible space may be hard to defend. Firefighters may be forced to choose defending other homes that have better defensible space. LANDSCAPING DEFENSIBLE SPACE A fire-resistant landscaping plan within the defensible space zone can yield a many -fold return of beauty, enjoyment and added property value. While use of native plant materials is generally best, a variety of adapted species will also thrive. Select plants that are more resistant to wildfire. Examples include: Native: Bog Birch, Chokecherry Adapted: Russian Hawthorn, Ginnla Maple, Lanceleaf Cottonwood Other considerations: • Trees and shrubs nearest to your home should be widely spaced with lower heights than those farther away. • Plant in small, irregular clusters or islands. Avoid planting in large masses. • Use decorative rock, gravel and stepping stone pathways to break up the continuity of vegetation and fuels. This can slow the spread of fire across your property. • Incorporate a diversity of plant types and species to minimize loss from pests and disease. • In the event of drought and water ration- ing, focus on maintaining plants closest to your house. • Use organic or inorganic mulches to conserve moisture and reduce weed growth. Do not use pine bark, thick layers of pine needles or other mulches that readily carry fire. Avoid large continuous mulched areas. Be creative! Vary your landscape by including bulbs, garden art and containers. NON-COMBUSTIBLE LANDSCAPE ZONE The first 5 feet outward from a foundation wall or deck is one of the most critical parts of your landscaping for home survivability. • Keep this area free of flammable materials and vegetation. • Use walkways, stone or concrete patios and landscape stone laid over weed barrier. • Well irrigated and maintained grass can be used in this area but is less desirable. 0 Illustration of recommended distances for fire-resistant landscaping Optimum placement of vegetation near a structure includes: A. Mow grass short around shrubs. B. The best tree species to plant generally are those naturally occurring on or near the site. C. Plant low -growing, deciduous shrubs near structures. 04 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 -wr D. Plant flowers away from the structure, ensure they are well - irrigated and cut back during the dormant season. E. Keep grass mowed around structure to a maximum of 4 inches. F. Use gravel or short mowed grass next to the structure. L 1111 Shale rocdecomposed 'and granite Loose cobblestone River rock N4•rte X W115ly 'r w Example of good non-combustible landscaping Foliage should be kept at least 10' from structure 05 MULCH • Mulch helps control erosion, conserve moisture and reduce weed growth. Inorganic non-combustible mulch, such as gravel, rock and decomposed gran- ite is preferable for reducing wildfire hazards and will remain more effective if it is laid over a weed barrier. When using organic mulches, such as compost or bark chips, use just enough to reduce weed and grass growth. Avoid thick layers. These thick layers of mulch tend to smolder and are difficult to extinguish when ignited. Choose organic mulches that have a larger chip size such as screened wood chips. An alternative is to use dense finely ground materials such as a garden compost with incorporated woody material. • Avoid using needles from your native pines or conifers. Rake, gather and dispose of them often within your de- fensible space. Never use mulches such as shredded tires around your home. These mulches, once ignited, are very difficult to extinguish and give off toxic fumes. The use of rubber tire mulches are prohibited by town code. Organic shredded bark mulch Non-combustible pea gravel 06 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 GRASSES Maintenance of the grassy areas around your home is critical. Given Vail's extremely variable weather, wildfires can occur any time snow does not cover the ground. Tall grass will quickly carry fire to your house. Mow grasses within 30 feet of your home. Avoid mowing areas of ecological sensitivity such as within the stream tract riparian areas. • Keep grasses short closest to the house and gradually increase height outward from the house, to a maximum of 4 inches. This is particularly important during fall, winter and before green -up in early spring, when grasses are dry, dormant and in a "cured" condition. Mow grasses low around the garage, decks, firewood piles, shrubs and specimen trees with low -growing branches. Well maintained grass broken up with non-combustible river rock feature GROUND COVER PLANTS Replace bare, weedy or unsightly patches near your home with ground covers, rock gardens, vegetable gardens and mulches. • Ground cover plants break up the monot- ony of grass and enhance the beauty of your landscape. They provide a variety of textures and color and help reduce soil erosion. • Consider ground cover plants for areas where access for mowing or other main- tenance is difficult, on steep slopes and on hot, dry exposures. • Ground cover plants are usually low growing. They are succulent or have other fire resistant characteristics that make them useful, functional and attractive. When planted in beds surrounded by walkways and paths, in raised beds or as part of a rock garden, they decrease fire spread. • The ideal ground cover plant is one which will spread, forming a dense mat of roots and foliage that reduces soil erosion and excludes weeds. Blue Fescue FLOWER BEDS • Flowers bring variety to a landscape and provide color from May until frost. Plant flowers in widely separated beds within the defensible space zone but away from structures. • Isolate flower beds from each other and from other fuels by using gravel walk- ways, rock retaining walls or irrigated grass areas mowed to a low height. Columbines Blue Salvia Hens and Chickens SHRUBS • Shrubs lend color and variety to the landscape and provide cover and food for wildlife. However, shrubs can add to a property's fuel source by producing flying embers, the leading cause of home ignition during wildfires. Shrubs are a "ladder fuel" — they can carry a relatively easy -to -control fire burning along the ground into tree crowns. Once a wildfire starts to burn into the crowns of the trees, they are difficult, sometimes impossible, to control. • To reduce the fire -spreading potential of shrubs, plant only widely separated low - growing, non -resinous shrubs around the property. • Do not plant shrubs directly beneath windows or vents or where they might spread under wooden decks. • Do not plant shrubs under tree crowns or use them to screen utilities, firewood piles or other flammable materials. • Plant shrubs as individuals or in small clumps apart from each other and away from any trees. Mow grasses low around shrubs. Prune dead or broken stems and remove dead material from shrubs annually. Remove the lower branches and suckers as the shrubs mature. Native Chokecherry 08 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 Example of proper non-combustible surface separation Example of unsafe separation between structure and vegetation TREES Trees provide a large amount of available fuel for a fire and can be a significant source of embers if they do burn. • Heat from burning trees can ignite nearby shrubs, trees and structures. • The best species to plant generally are those already growing on or near the property. If your property receives enough moisture, plant deciduous trees such as aspen or cottonwood. These species, even when planted in dense clumps, generally do not burn well, if at all. Remove accumulations of dead leaves close to structures as soon as possible after leaf drop. • If evergreen trees are desired or required, take care in properly locating the trees. Do not plant evergreen trees near struc- tures. Leave plenty of room between trees to allow for their growth. Spacing of trees within the defensible space should be at least 10 feet between the Example of safe ground clearance edges of crowns. On steep ground, allow even more space between crowns. Plant smaller trees initially on a 20- to 25 - foot spacing to allow for tree growth. At some point, you will have to thin your trees to retain proper spacing. • As the trees grow, prune branches to a height of 10 feet above the ground. Do not overprune the crowns. A good rule of thumb is to remove no more than one-third of the live crown of the tree when pruning. Prune existing trees as well as ones you planted. • Some trees (for example, Colorado blue spruce) tend to keep a full crown. Other trees grown in the open may also exhibit a full growth habit. Limit the number of trees of this type within the defensible space. Prune surround- ing trees and shrubs as described above and mow grasses around such specimen trees. �t l y }4f t � Example of tree too close to structure am STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF A FIRE-RESISTANT LANDSCAPE When building a deck or patio: • Use concrete, flagstone, rock, pavers, heavy timbers or wood products pressure - treated for fire resistance. Avoid use of untreated wood deck boards. Always clear any debris from below decks, between boards or areas that collect debris. • If your property requires a retaining wall, consider the materials used for construction. Rock or masonry walls are best, but even wooden tie walls constructed of heavy timbers will work. Avoid having landscape timbers tying into the structure. • On steep slopes, consider building steps and walkways around structures. This serves as a physical barrier to fire spread. Example of non-combustible landscaping 10 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 Gabian rock wall f Stacked stone r0 ti J! 0 1� 5 •"r _- ••t� TK Ire MAINTENANCE A landscape is a dynamic system that constantly grows and changes. Keep L our landscape maintained year-round o retain its fire-resistant properties. Always keep a watchful eye towards reducing fuel volumes available to fire. Be aware of how quickly plants grow within your landscape and of the chang- es that occur throughout the seasons. • Remove annuals and cut back perennials after they have gone to seed or when the stems become overly dry. • Rake up leaves and other litter as it builds up through the season. W • Mow or trim grasses to a low height within your defensible space. This is particularly important as grasses cure. • Remove plant parts damaged by snow, wind, frost or other agents. • Timely pruning is critical. Pruning not only reduces fuel volumes but also maintains healthier plants by producing more vigorous, succulent growth. Landscape maintenance is a critical part of your home's defense system. Even the best defensible space can be compro- mised through lack of maintenance. PROPERTY SELF ASSESSMENT Your self assessment starts with an overall look at your home site. Certain factors such as: the slope of the area, where your home sits on the hillside, distance between you and your neighbors, and the design of your home greatly influence your risk from wildfires. Items in green indicate a lower risk while items in orange and red indicate high risk factors. Many of these risk factors can not be directly changed, however mitigation actions such as changing/reducing landscaping around your home can reduce the effect of these risk factors. Vail Fire and Emergency Services is available year-round to assist you with any questions or concerns. Contact the Wildland Division at 970.477.3475. INFORMATIONAL General Slope of Area 0-9% 10 -20% 21-30% Homes positioned on a slope or proximity to features that adversely affect wildfire behavior Bottom 1/3 of slope Middle 1/3 of slope Separation of structures that can 30 feet or greater contribute to fire spread/ behavior Architectural styles that contribute omplex roof designs to home ignition BUILT ZONE - The structure itself 20-29 feet Interior corners/ roof dormers YES NO Non-combustible roof materials present Non-combustible siding material present on 75% or more of the structure Deck built with ignition -resistant materials Absence of combustible attachments (i.e. fences, window boxes, accessory buildings) Spark arrestor on chimneys 4" or larger address displayed where it is visible from the road 12 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 LEAN, CLEAR AND GREEN ZONE - Within 5 feet of structure Yt5 NU Branches removed from within 10 feet of the structure Leaves, needles and other flammable materials removed from gutter and roof Leaves, needles and other flammable materials removed from on top and beneath decks, steps and overhangs No plants, leaves, needles and other flammable material within 5 feet of structure WILDLAND FUEL REDUCTION ZONE - Within 100 feet of the structure YES NO Grass mowed to 4 inches or less in height within 30 feet of the structure Trees thinned to spacing guidelines on page 9 Shrubs thinned to spacing guidelines on page 8 Flammable brush removed from beneath trees Trees limbed to a minimum of 6 feet above ground (10 feet desired, do not limb more than 1/3 of the total height of the tree) Dead or dying material removed from the lower 10 feet of all trees and bushes ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO MAKE YOUR HOME SAFER WAYS WILDFIRE WILL THREATEN YOUR RESIDENCE Vail Fire and Emergency Services has provided this guide as a reference for community members to understand wildfire risks and ways to reduce that risk. Following these recommendations will help your home survive in the event of a wildland fire. For more information, refer to vailgov.com/departments/fire/wildland. Wildfire will threaten your property in three ways: Contact by Flames This type of threat occurs when vegetation and other fuels burning near the house produce flames that come in contact with the home and ignite it. Often it happens when fire burns through a uniform layer of vegetation right up to the house. It is important to reduce wildland vegetation on the property to reduce this threat. Radiated Heat Radiated heat is produced by electromagnetic waves that travel out in all directions from a flame. When a house receives enough radiated heat for a sufficient amount of time, it will ignite. Sometimes radiated heat can burst windows and allow burning embers to enter the house. It is important to construct homes with fire-resistant materials to reduce this threat. Flying Embers More houses burn due to flying embers than any other reason. If fire conditions are right, embers can be lofted high into the air and transported more than a mile. Burning embers can also be carried by wind and fire whirls. If these burning embers land in easily ignitable materials, a new fire can start. Wood shake roofs are especially vulnerable to ember ignition. It is important to remove flammable materials on and near homes such as pine needles, wood piles and shrubs to reduce this threat. 14 vailgov.com/fire 1 970.479.2250 SHRUB SPACING GUIDELINES 0-5 feet from the structure There should be no combustible vegetation in this zone. Water -dependent and irrigated vegetation is acceptable if kept free of dead needles, leaves and debris. 5-30 feet from structure Vegetation in this zone should be limited to single, well -spaced specimen plants. No dead vegetation should exist in this zone. If you decide to allow some flammable brush to remain such as juniper bushes, they must be thinned and maintained to the extent that it cannot transfer fire to the structure or other vegetation. These specimen plants should not be left under the drip line of any overstory trees in this zone. Beyond 30 feet from the structure Flammable brush in this area should be removed from under the drip line of any trees. A good rule of thumb for thinning brush in open areas is to create a distance between shrubs of twice the height. For example, if a shrub is 3 feet high then the distance to the next shrub should be at least 6 feet. This spacing should increase as slope of the lot increases. TREE SPACING GUIDELINES 0-5 feet from the structure No trees or branches should be within this zone. Trees and branches should not touch or overhang the structure. If trees must be kept in this zone they should be limbed up a minimum of 10 feet and be free of dead limbs, needles and leaves. 5-30 feet from structure Afew individual well spaced trees can be kept in this zone. All trees in this zone should be limbed to a height of 10 feet, but never prune branches on more than 1/3 the total height of the tree. 30-100 feet from the structure Trees in this zone should be well spaced and maintained. Trees should be spaced an average of 10 feet from drip line to drip line of the trees. Small clumps of trees can be left if desirable. Treat each clump as if it were a single tree and create spacing between the clumps. All dead and diseased trees in this zone should be removed. A permit is required for the limbing and removal of all trees in the Town of Vail limits. Permits can be obtained from the Community Development Department at 75 South Frontage Road or 970.479.2138. Some content courtesy of CSU Extension 15 --- ��� ................:::ins.rH..�r.rr++�i.r►rr:.:..,r.:.. r� -- �t - JA ' M J tom., �� ; '► air n �e 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2250 1 vailgov.com/fire 0 TOWN F VA 0 Preserve and enhance the natural landscape character while protecting your home from wildfire. A& Aft, LL M ° O O O U 7) (n a) � ° OC 7 U) O N O C a) (D > ° U n (Ln U) CL CL CL O C .(D L > U (D a) Q C O C a) (n C C > m m O d a) '� LL E -O N O O L L U o , C 0 a) 2LU > 7 E2 o w 2 r d' 2 U J Z 0 2> W U m J iL J d' H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a c m � N n a) � U U U U c Y O aai (n (n U U N n T) it.� N L U U O U W .� a) U) o ami m ° m ° L ° a > iL C L N O° X Q C .> N` E a 30 U .a a 0 =C N O m O O m C (D m C 7 o (D C1 C E a Z U) m W' 0 U> > U U) Z Q U U) W' U) Un J c fq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L U U U a) (n a)(n a) >N U ` Y L` D U D p L m> d N to m`m m O a a) U ° U) °� > m m U O) L O) X Q a) uLL 0) d o U =n C 0 mO O C m C 7 o m n C N Z m d' 00 U U U Q U of of U U J to .............. U O � LL � (n -c �2 'O O c O O O U 7) o O 7 O )w '� w Y O C a) fn N U C O N UO "p O U L C Q N C C(D .N 'O ON3 QYn QC U(D m N aJOa) dUa) °> U U U E O) (n °O 05> oU .E -° O n O EU > W o mL° m oo LLJ > d W Um JO Z 02LL C> Hm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w O W ° o W (n > L r >Lm L O '� L O 0 U U �! — -O > -O -O U O C 'O V a) Z(CD m -° -° L U Z m° N :3 w w (1) (1) E E o L Q o w � .� E> E 7 (� LL 0 p p � 7 >i � w '(C -D U L O� 'C d Y 7 O L U' °_ U U -O E m �O U�2F C U �_ O (D (D 06 C C a) 0) of (D Of O C C � m C' O) O) U U � E C C y m U Cl) U .° — m U a) C U E U O) (n _ > d -0 2 Y 3 C1 C1 O U a) a) O W O O L25 2u) U (D Q) E O a) C C 2 2 Z ?j !L 0- = Z w Z - Z U) o Z m U Z v 2 U) U U Optimal landscap clearana from stru • GRASS - 5' • SHRUBS -10' • TREES - 10' Optimum placement of vegetation near a structure includes: • Mow grasses short around trees and shrubs. • The best tree species to plant generally are those naturally occurring on or near the site. • Plant low -growing, deciduous shrubs closer to the structure and keep evergreen shrubs further away and well spaced. • Plant flowers at least 5 feet away from the structure, ensure they are well irrigated and cut back during the dormant season. • Keep grass mowed around structure to a maximum of 4 inches. However, avoid mowing ecologically sensitive areas around streams • Use gravel or short mowed grass next to the structure. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: August 12, 2019 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 081219.pdf August 12, 2019 PEC Meeting Results PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VAI0 August 12, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John - Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: None 1.2. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1/ C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal 15 min. advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Planning and Environmental Commission Process. Matt Mire, Town Attorney Brian Gillette moved to convene Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (0-0). Brian Gillette moved to adjourn Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (0-0). Main Agenda 2.1. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 20 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Jonathan Spence presented the case Mr. Barrie stated that this is an effort to improve an existing condition. Mr Barrie stated that construction is removing an existing put -in area. He noted that the idea is to use an area that is about 100 yards downstream to build a similar access point to one over at Stephens Park or over a Lions Square Lodge. Mr. Barrie described the 10 -minute drop off zone. Chairman Stockmar called for public comment Henry Pratt, resident across the street, stated that the two biggest issues were parking and pooping. He stated that he is in favor of moving the launch downstream but noted that people ignore signs. He stated that his concern is the lack of porta pottys. He stated the rafting companies show up with 50 guests and daily there is a constant parade of people using the area. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Barrie stated that the opportunity for a permanent bathroom would best be located at the parking area. Mr. Gillette asked staff to explore ways to conceal the portapotty. Mr. Lockman commended staff and appreciated the effort to approve and is in support of the application. Ms. Hopkins stated that she was in support and was in support of a more permanent structure. Ms. Perez stated that staff did a great job and it meets all the criteria and does like the idea of a more permanent structure. Mr. Kurz stated that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Gillette stated that he is in favor. Mr. Kjesbo stated he is also in favor. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is also in favor, though he is concerned that the two time -restricted spaces would be abused and enforcement was necessary. Mr. Stockmar closed comments. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min. Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0026) Applicant: Chris Olsson Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The applicant shall execute an encroachment agreement with the adjacent property, to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder within 90 days of the date of approval, or the plans shall be amended to not encroach. Planner Spence introduced the application and presented photos of the existing conditions. Mr. Spence described the zoning requirements and described how this lot was different from the surrounding neighborhood and noted a strong disconnect with the code language and the built condition. Mr. Spence stated that staff has found that the application does meet the criteria for a variance. Mr. Gillette asked about the deck going over the property line. Mr. Spence stated that should the board approve the variance an encroachment agreement will be required. Mr. Spence clarified that this is one development lot, so individual property lines were not considered in terms of setbacks. Mr. Olsson had no further comments. Mr. Stockmar opened up public comments. Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and applicant Mr. Kjesbo was in support. Mr. Gillette was in support and wanted to add a condition that the applicant shall submit an encroachment agreement that would run with the land within 90 days of the PEC approval. Mr. Stockmar closed commissioner comments. Mr. Kurz moved to approve with the condition that the applicant submit a recorded encroachment agreement to the Town of Vail within 90 days of their approval. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min. Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to required rear and east side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0029) Applicant: Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Approval of this Variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Planner Spence presented the application for a variance and noted the addition does not extend the footprint of the existing building. He noted the home was conforming when it was built. Mr. Spence stated that staff finds that this application meets the requirements for a variance. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence clarified that the special circumstances contribute to the variance. Mr. Mauriello stated that he has a presentation ready Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Mauriello described the special circumstances and noted that they built the house before setbacks were changed. He stated that everyone else in the neighborhood has been able to build additions and this home cannot. He stated the other option would be to do an addition somewhere else on the building, but that would require a variance for site coverage. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence stated that the home was constructed in conformance with the town code that subsequently changed. Mr. Stockmar called for public comments. Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and staff Mr. Stockmar called for commissioner comments. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, 15 min. Vail Town Code, to allow for an internally illuminated menu board for McDonalds located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0027) Applicant: McDonald's Real Estate Co., represented by Site Enhancement Services Planner: Ashley Clark 1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted. 2. No single menu board shall exceed 20 square feet in size, including framing. 3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to, promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu boards at any time. 4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when the restaurant is closed to the public. 5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Ms. Clark presented the case. Langdon White echoed staff comments and noted that they are a significant improvement. Mr. Lockman inquired if the two signs are still working as intended for flow of traffic. Mr. James Nelson stated that the two signs help the restaurant to function efficiently. Mr. Stockmar opened up for public comment. Mr. Stockmar closed public comments. Mr. Kjesbo was in support along with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Kurz, Ms. Perez and Ms. Hopkins and Mr. Lockman. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 Min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Mr. Stockmar called for item 2. 6 review of a development plan. Mr. Gennett, Director of Community Development, provided a statement. Mr. Gennett provided some clarification to some issues that have been raised. He stated that the wildlife biologist's comment that "no development is the best mitigation" is not within the purview of the PEC. He stated that the property is zoned for development and has been for 45 years. He stated that 18 acres of the 24 were zoned natural area and preservation with the remaining 5 acres as Housing. He noted that the PEC is not reviewing an application to change any development rights. He noted the application for a development plan is being reviewed today. Mr. Gennett stated that staff has found that the application meets all the criteria. He noted that staff has an obligation to process the application under the code. He noted that refined conditions of approval have been circulated to the board and that there are no substantive changes. Ms. Perez stated that no development would be tantamount to a regulatory taking. Mr. Spence described the changes to the bus stop and keeping it on the west end of the site. Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence provided a presentation on the changes that have been made to the application. Mr. Spence reviewed the review criteria according to Section 12-61- 13 A — F. Mr. Kassmel stated that a question raised was the validation of why the traffic counted happened and the impact if school as in session. He stated that the traffic counts are done at the busiest time of the year, which is typically Christmas/New Years. He stated that with a count during school the impacts would be slight but the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating those increases. He stated that the road can handle approximately 1,800 cars and according to the study there are 300 cars projected. Mr. Kassmel stated that they requested a budget for a sidewalk and stated and council requested counts. He stated that the count will be done in the next few weeks. Mr. Gillette stated that council should consider the impact of the new development in considering a sidewalk addition. He stated the town needs to think about the future and how it is used. Mr. Stockmar stated that the existing condition of the underpass is an issue which will be exacerbated with this development. Mr. Spence referred to Criteria B and reviewed how it meets the criteria. Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence reviewed the rest of the criteria for review. There was a discussion regarding the prohibition of dogs on the entire site. Mr. O'Connor provided a presentation of the Booth Heights Neighborhood. There was a discussion regarding a conservation easement. Relying on a slide show titled "Booth Heights Neighborhood: Development Application and Conditional Use Permit" dated 8/12/19 PEC Meeting, Mr. O'Connor reviewed the current iteration of the proposal. Mr. O'Connor referred to page 200 of the planning documents that outlines the changes that have been made. He stated that they have made some units smaller to arrive at the required 70/30 EHU to market rate GRFA ratio. . He noted that a landscape buffer has been added at the bus stop to buffer the space behind. Mr. O'Connor stated that his team is present and prepared to answer any questions. Mr. O'Connor reviewed the wild life mitigation plan. He stated their goal is balancing the need for housing in the community with the protection of wildlife. Mr. O'Connor stated that the dialogue with the wildlife biologists was helpful and productive and assembled a list of what can be done to help wildlife. Mr. O'Connor reviewed slide "Revised Onsite Wildlife Mitigation Plan" and described how they have decided to allocate their resources in the mitigation plan as a result of meeting. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. O'Connor stated that through the discussion with the wildlife biologists they have modified their fence. Generally, the conclusion of the wildlife biologists is that fences have ends and people will go around. He stated instead the strategy is to focus on getting people to not go into the protected areas. Mr. O'Connor noted additionally that a fence traps wildlife and would restrict grazing area; the idea was to keep people in rather than keep wildlife out and there are instead other avenues to achieve keeping people out without the negative externalities of a fence to the wildlife. There was a discussion regarding the proposed dog condition. Staff's drafted condition prohibits all dogs in both the rental and homeowner units. Mr. O'Connor stated that he is in support of restricting the rental units, however, would like to allow owner occupied units to have dogs. Mr. O'Connor discussed the revised offsite wildlife mitigation plan and identified areas that would most benefit from wildlife enhancement. Mr. O'Connor stated that they have created a mechanism to allocate resources to these areas or others. Mr. Gillette asked regarding the parcels that the town has control of — how many of those were included in the green polygons on wildlife distribution report? Rick Thompson, Western Ecosystems, stated that there is considerable overlap of the 2017-2019 winter range polygon with the Town of Vail parcels that extend above bald mountain and the booth creek. Mr. Thompson explained a categorical exclusion. He stated that there are conditions where there cant be any significant impacts including those that threaten endangered species or allows a habitat enhancement project that have little opposition or issues. Mr. Thompson stated on J my 29, all the resource specialists got together and were provided with information they needed to consider a sweep of projects ranging form habitat modifications, as benign of clearing trails to other things. Mr. Gillette clarified that Mr. Thompson has already presented to the Forest Service. Mr. Gillette asked about the timeline for starting the project. Mr. O'Connor stated that they would start in spring if they got approval today. Mr. Gillette then asked if the enhancements proposed will help the sheep during the first winter. Mr. Thompson stated that some displacement of sheep to the west and driveway entrance, where a buffer zone is proposed. He stated there are different types of enhancements that can be done. Mr. Thompson stated that implementation is tricky because you do not want to disturb the sheep or do enhancements not in season. Mr. O'Connor stated they would begin construction by June 1 and have the implementation in place for the following winter. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the Community-wide actions to help wildlife. He stated that this effort would be the framework for helping the Big Horn Sheep. He noted that these strategies need to be implemented not because of one project but because of a cumulative. There was a discussion regarding the mortality rate of sheep collaring, which is around 3% versus 4 out of 9 sheep in the previous study. There was a discussion regarding community wide efforts to protect the sheep through a town or community wide effort. Mr. O'Connor stated that the sheep are here and are habituated to human activity in the valley. Mr. O'Connor stated the town code and planning documents require us that the environment needs to be maintained or improved from existing conditions. He stated that hey are proposing a responsible development and are supporting the larger effort. He stated his development is committed to wildlife protection, more so than any other project. Matt Yamashita and Devon Duval from CPW answered questions from the PEC. Mr. Yamashita stated that they have reviewed the final letter put out by the independent biologists. He noted that the conversations tried to encompass and review the wild life mitigation plan. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Yamashita stated that some points are implemented exactly while other points that they do not agree with. Mr. Yamashita stated with regard to the fence, in their initial comment letter they advocated for a fence based on the idea that people need to be contained. He noted that in discussions with other wildlife biologists, they agree that fences in general are not good for wildlife. Mr. Yamashita stated that having a fence that only delays the human encroachment might not be the best solution when it will restrict the sheep to move freely. Mr. Yamashita described the mitigation efforts as a shot in the dark and trying to replicate a habitat is difficult and can't always be done. He stated the mitigation work is a guess. Mr. Yamashita stated there are some ways to mitigate and offset impact however, it doesn't always work. He stated that they could put $10 million worth of mitigation and there's still no way to guarantee protection. Mr. Yamashita stated that as this is the only winter range left, therefore it is very valuable. There was a discussion over fertilization and the appropriate time to fertilize Bill Andre stated that fall is the best time to fertilize and provided several reasons why, namely to improve the root system. Mr. Gillette asked what size of an area would be feasible to do with a backpack. Mr. Thomson stated that it can be done with a backpack. He noted that the grass would be treated separately for cheatgrass control. Mr. Andre stated that a larger site is needed to be feasible for a plane. Ms. Hopkins stated that this year has been exceptional for moisture but asked what happens with the grass and fertilizer during a drought. Mr. Andre stated that if there is a drought after a burn or fertilization there will be no benefit. He stated a burn may provide some benefit over a fertilizer. He stated with a fertilizer; the area should be changed. He noted that in regards to size, 166 acres is what a semi carries. He stated you do not want to do a 5 -acre patch by itself; you create an area that will be decimated, so a treatment needs to be large enough to spread the animals out. It should be done in linear trips to make the animals move. Mr. Andre thought getting the Forest Service involved would be good, however, did not know what their desire is based on their workload. Mr. Yamashita stated that he appreciated the consideration the planning commission has put into this and their diligence and appreciated being able to work with the town and the developer. He noted it's been a very collaborative process. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the traffic study and methodology and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Stockmar stated that he relies on the expertise of Tom Kassmel and the traffic report and is comfortable with what is presented. There was then a discussion regarding parking. Mr. O'Connor stated that adding parking does a disservice to the community amenities. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is comfortable with the town home unit parking ratio. Mr. O'Connor stated the apartment building compared to other locals housing projects, Booth Heights is excess of all of those. Mr. Stockmar stated the other properties are different because of their locations. Mr. O'Connor stated the town code gives the PEC flexibility through the parking management plan. He stated it's a rental community that can be controlled by leases. He stated if their lives require two cars per household, they will not live here. Mr. O'Connor stated that the households that live in the apartment building will be bound by their lease. He stated the story would be different for condominium buildings. Matt Jones, Vail Resorts, stated that he oversees the five Colorado resorts and oversees the employee housing. Mr. Jones stated that they have direct control over the housing management of their employees. He stated that in their agreement to have a master lease for 36 units, that includes 1 space per unit and they have seen that as a successful ratio. He stated that the bus system is sufficient and an employee living in the Town of Vail does not need cars. Mr. Stockmar stated that he is glad to hear Vail Resorts housing employees are being managed differently. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the bus stop and noted there are two options for the PEC to consider. Mr. O'Connor discussed the unfeasibility of the bus stop at the east side location. Mr. O'Connor then discussed the geology and rock -fall study. Julia Fraser reviewed the LI DAR ground surface and noted that for their rock -fall analysis they looked at the site from three cross sections. She noted that the results of that study are summarized in the table and stated that the results are less intense than results from a proposal to the west of the site. She reviewed the berm that has been designed for the site. Ms. Fraser reviewed the ancient landslide map. She noted the general understanding is that these ancient landslides are largely inactive in their current condition. Upon inquiry from Mr. Stockmar, Ms. Fraser stated that she cannot guarantee that no major slide will happen. Mr. Stockmar stated he wished there was a way to quantify the risk. Ms. Fraser stated that we live in a slope risk zone, being in Colorado. Mr. O'Connor stated that the landslide area that is designated is to the west and noted that when they get around to doing the soil stability testing, that is when you understand the conditions and engineer for it. He stated that is why monitoring is important. Mr. O'Connor stated the rock fall zone on the site is discussed in the code and noted there is a similar condition for Solar Vail. Mr. O'Connor then summarized the presentation. There was a discussion regarding funds to increase the level of service to East Vail. Mr. Kassmel stated that the increase in service is going through the budget process currently. Mr. O'Connor referred to a hand out he distributed to the PEC titled "Booth Heights Development: Housing District Review Criteria," dated 8/12/2019. Mr. Stockmar then called for public comments: Susan Bird, Vail resident, served on the PEC in 2012, stated that the Betty Alpine Gardens Educational center which was originally proposed at the bank of the creek, however, was moved to a more appropriate location. Ms. Bird stated that she approved the Timber Housing redevelopment. She stated that she supports housing and stated that Timber Ridge apartments could also be redeveloped and there are more desirable locations. She stated dogs will chase and kill as many sheep as possible and asked the PEC to focus on the environmental impact. She stated that the town is growing at a rapid pace and stated they need to take a step back and the town needs a master plan for both portals. Carlos, employee housing resident, stated that without having the opportunity to live in employee housing, he would not be here. He stated he enjoys his job and friendships and also cleans up cigarettes from the group when he sees them. Kevin Sherwood, Vail resident, stated that he lives in Vail and works two jobs and struggles to survive off his income because of expensive housing. He stated his work staff was often reduced due to frozen road conditions. He stated that a staff of two people is difficult to maintain Vail. Suzanne O'Neal, Colorado Wild Life Federation, stated that the proposed mitigation may or may not work. Ms. O'Neal stated that she reviewed the previous reports provided. She stated the condition of approval and should include timing, particularly the $100,000. Robin Burch, 3225 Katsos Ranch Road, stated that she is developing in Katsos Ranch. Ms. Burch stated as a real estate developer she could not build a house in a red zone and had to blast six tons of rock. She stated she has big horn sheep in her back yard looking for food. Ben Gilbert, Moe's Original owner, he stated that after 18 years being in business, the last two years have been the most difficult. He stated that they're struggling being open for dinner because of the difficulty in attaining employees. He stated that they are almost out of Vail because they cannot get employees. Terry Meyers, Rocky Mountain Big Horn Society, stated that the $100,000 will be spent very quickly and the town should understand what the cost will be for these mitigation efforts. Moe's BBQ stated that they have worked hard to build a business to embody what their business is about and vice versa. He stated that they are not even open for dinner tonight because they can't be and have struggled since June because of employees. Kyle Denton, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the proposal. He stated that the town lacks affordable housing. Louise Hoverston read a letter from Cindy and Tony Ryerson, which stated that they have lived in Vail for 34 years. She stated that they recognize that affordable housing is and that this project will impact the herd and their survivability. Lynne Gottlieb, speaking for herself and husband John, stated that they were coming down Vail pass and the new entrance captured their attention and stated this new entrance creates a refreshing and pleasing aura. She stated that they looked at the site proposed and could not imagine all the buildings jammed in and shuddered. She stated this decision is not big horn sheep versus affordable housing, that the affordable housing can go somewhere else. She stated the town should buy the land and preserve it. She suggested building on top of an existing parking structure. Jurgen Hintz, happily paying taxes, stated that the board must ask themselves why they do not reject the false comparison of keeping the sheep or employee housing. He stated that the town can have the employee housing and not destroy the sheep territory. He stated that the board should take on the responsibility of taking away greenbelt, to be sure there's no other way. Charlyn Canada, Vail resident, stated that the mudslide fell into the creek because the earth was saturated and was told by the fire department to evacuate due to flash flood concerns. She stated the Booth Creek Fault slipped which rocked their house. She looked skyward hoping to see fighter jets flying over in formation but instead saw clouds of dust from airborne boulders. Ms. Canada stated they are unsure if the berm will protect the houses. She stated the forces of nature dictate this high-risk slope and the highest and best use is for the grazing of Big Horn sheep. John Ervin, bus driver in Vail, has driven by the site 18 times a day for the last 38 years. He stated that most people don't see them when you drive by. He stated that everyone enjoys seeing the sheep. He stated there was no East Vail bus; it was a Big Horn Bus. He stated that living in employee housing, when it first opened, nobody followed the rules. He stated that the Denver weekend people will bring dogs to this proposal. He stated that his daughter's four -pound yorkie chases bears, so sheep wouldn't be an issue. He stated that Metallica lead guy likes that his daughter has sheep near her school. Elyse Howard, Vail resident, stated that she has worked for Habitat for Humanity, and stated that Vail is approximately 2,800 units short and in 2025 will be more. She stated that developing housing is difficult and expensive. Peter Seibert, Vail resident, stated that the zoning is in place and so the boards charge is to work with the developer to come up with a plan that meets the zoning for the site. He stated that if you saw this project from the beginning and told council what you'd end up with this much land to be set aside, they would've said no way. He stated that everyone has worked hard but this is time to approve this. J eff W iles, Vail resident, stated that there is a housing issue for the employees. He stated that he is in favor of employee housing that will take the stress of the people he works with lives. Donna Mumma stated that traffic safety is a big issue, especially for pedestrians. She stated the context is the new community that will go in the underpass. She noted the walkability score of this site is not walkable. It is in a category that requires a car for all residents. She stated that she takes issue that this project will decrease driving into Vail. Ms. Mumma stated that it took her an hour to take the bus to City Market. Fred Rumford, Vail resident, stated that he has enjoyed growing up here. He stated that Triumph Development has provided a detailed analysis on providing housing in the town and stated that he feels the design criteria have been met. He urged the board to think about Vail's next generation. Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, stated that the staff memo on Friday was a shock that it recommended approval and that it failed to include the recommendation from the three Vail hired wildlife biologists to not build on the site. She stated other issues have not been resolved: the underpass, parking, enforcement, number of units and the landslide risk. She stated the only NIMBY in this situation is the Big Horn Sheep. She stated they are opposed to developing on this parcel. She stated that this entire process has been flawed from the beginning, starting with the rezoning that passed PEC and council and the sudden departure of town manager Greg Clifton. She asked the board to restore faith in the local government and take their time and hold people accountable Tom Vucich, Vail resident, stated several people have left the meeting because they cannot stay for four hours. He stated that a geological survey (6/21/2019) stated that an item in the letter states "two possibly three small avalanche paths.... they can be very destructive." Mr. Vucich read from the minutes from a previous meeting and asked where the geological studies are. Yann Benjamin, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the project and described how the project supports the legacy of Vail. Jeff Babb, Vail resident, stated that living in the community in which he worked was a great experience. He stated that living in East Vail was cool and beautiful and he never needed his car because the bus service was so amazing. He stated that led him to feel like a member of the community. After 6 -months of looking for something to buy, they moved to Edwards, which was a difficult decision. Beth Howard, Chief Operating Officer Vail Mountain, stated that the meetings have had strong turn out and appreciate the public's voice in this community. She stated that we need to create an experience of a lifetime, having housing in a convenient location, and why the East Vail housing location is ideal. Mike Connolly, General Manager Triumph Partners Management, stated that his reasons for supporting the proposal are beyond just his pride in working for Triumph. He urged the board to approve the project. Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber, stated that she moved here right out of college, lived in a small apartment. She stated they didn't have dogs or outdoor space. She stated that a few years ago they did a few open houses with millennials, stated it wasn't just about affordability but also being close to where they work. Mark Gordon, Vail resident, stated that he looks for the positive and this project does not come up with a win-win, and hates binary negotiations and he just doesn't see how both sides can have a win. He stated he found a few positive: 1) almost everybody prefaced their comments with saying I support the town's initiative for housing, which is a huge positive, 2) the housing zoning which was tweaked, worked, the idea was to incentive the private sector to build employee housing and 3) congratulated the applicant on the mitigation plan but stated its improving other areas as well. He stated this mitigation plan needs to be worked on this mitigation plan for continued mitigation. Doug Wooldridge stated that he travels a lot in the summer months, recruiting staff. He noted that the first thing out of everybody's mouth is: do you have housing? He stated he has a staff of about 100, and about 40 of them commute from Gypsum or Eagle. He stated it's about a two-hour commute by bus. He stated that staff morale goes downhill as a result of continued commuting. He asked the board to approve the project. Anne Esson, Vail resident, stated that conditions are welcome as well as mitigation money. She stated that the biologist's recommendation to mitigate with demonstrable success before construction has gotten lost, also no dogs, not even comfort animals is not the same as dogs allowed by town home owners. She stated dogs are carnivores. She stated the town sponsored plan offers more than the Triumph proposal. Will Lewis, Vail resident, stated that he is on the board of directors for a town home complex, about the size of this proposal. He stated their on going problems are dogs and parking even though they have rules and regulations. He stated they are supposed to be given the information, but they are not. He stated they have tenants with four cars. He stated it's a constant challenged and it's disingenuous to think you're going to educate people about those aspects. He stated their parking is woefully unacceptable. He stated the dogs are the biggest things. Lindsay Reimers, Vail resident, stated that every town or city arrives at a threshold project that says its time to be more sensitive to decision making. She stated we are there and that this is a complex social issue. She stated that geology and information on what we know so far is not defensible, it's scary. She stated the wildlife and dogs are not compatible. Michael Hazard, Vail resident, stated that they held a meeting to understand how to build employee housing. He stated that the council's actions entitled this property with housing as a use by right. He stated that there is a need for good employee housing. Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership, stated that there is a need for workforce housing. He stated that the apartment parking count has been increased to 60, which is more than any of the recent housing projects that are adequately served today. He stated they do not know enough about the wildlife to say yes. He stated the Town of Vail has the playbook to help the herd and this development does more than its fair share. He encouraged the board to vote yes. Matt Jones, father and husband, stated that he wanted to live in Vail and wasn't able to find a place and tried to buy a place in Vail and could not. Kate Grattan, General Manager in Vail, she stated most people ask if there is employee housing. She stated that they often lose employees to other "world class markets" asked the board to vote yes. Joe Joyce, Vail resident, stated that he is really impressed that there are so many people present to support employee housing. He stated generally its people who are opposed have all the energy to come out to these meetings. Mr. Joyce stated that the neighborhood is a rock -fall area and all those homes are in rock -fall areas. He stated people are staying in their rock -fall neighborhoods. He stated it comes down to zoning and personal property rights. Joe Stauffer, resident longer than Pete Seibert stated that they transferred the density to five acres. He stated that there is no one in the room who disagrees with the need for employee housing. He stated town council gives the right to residents to rent. He noted over 100 permanent residents lost their jobs. He stated that if this project gets approved, the Big Horn Sheep, its goodbye for them. Grace Poganski, Vail resident, stated that its been suggested that we take the motion out of the decision and its also been suggested that we not repeat things that have been said. She said she found a fact that is emotionless and true: the U.S. Forest Service manual 2671.1 Sensitive Species Management: they must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability. She noted there must be no impact to sensitive species. She asked the commission to exercise its own best practices and accept that the best mitigation for the herd is to find another location. Heather Leonard, Vail resident, stated that as of last month she is no longer subterranean and she now has a view of 1-70. She stated that there is strict enforcement of the rules in Vail's employee housing. Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, stated that while a need for employee housing exists, their job is to dissect the merits of this development. She stated that she finds it ironic that they have not seen a drawing of a building showing the berm. She referred to the wild life biologists reports and stated the omissions in the staff memo are significant. She stated that the comparison of the properties Triumph uses in town are not far. She stated that Vail Resorts can decide where their housing goes. She stated regarding dogs on the property, she is a property owner of an HOA with strict rules which are still violated and so if anybody thinks that making regulations and having somebody sign something is not going to work. She stated Triumph has used misinformation throughout. She stated that approving this because it's always done is a pattern that needs to change and to stop degrading the wildlife. Bill Andre, stated that a comment from Triumph that everybody has their bias. He stated he has never heard a developer say I'm going to hurt the wildlife. He stated that mitigation has generally not worked and needs to come before any development. He stated that $100,000 may sound like a lot; however, one collar is $1,000. He stated the key to mitigation is it has to be enforced and flexible, if what you first start to do isn't working you have to change it. He stated the valley wide effort needs to be enforced and in place before any development happens. He stated no dogs, no trails, no recreation — who is going to enforce it? He stated there are dozens of conservation easements throughout Colorado and are not respected. He stated that the HOA can change their board and vote in their own covenants. He stated that they've had 5 biologists groups telling you that mitigation won't work. Mr. Andre stated that compromise means less wildlife. Barbie Christopher stated that her biggest concern is maintaining the treasures and not pave the paradise and put up a parking lot. She stated that they have regular encounters with wildlife. She stated there has always been a housing shortage in the town and living the mountain lifestyle is worth the various sacrifices. She stated the wildness of the mountains is what distinguishes us from the suburb and a city. Susan Bristol, Vail resident, stated that she took some notes. She stated that there are some things that concern her. Ms. Bristol stated that 11 trees are shown on the site plan — and asked if we should take the developers word for landscaping at the bus stop? She stated she did not understand why the developer is so insistent on having dogs. She stated dogs will kill the sheep. Her nine pound dog barks at things, like the deer in her yard. She stated there is supposed to be implementation of mitigation and meant to be before construction. She asked how hat works out with the developers building schedule. She stated that there haven't been considerations of removing some of the units and making it a little more low-rise. She stated by golly, she is all for work force housing, but not here. Pete Feistman, Vail resident, stated this project is not in his backyard. He stated that if the board feels the wildlife can be mitigated. He stated that Mr. O'Connor stated even this first band of cliffs is 700' above the bowl we're developing in. Do you believe a rock -fall can be mitigated from this height? He stated that the owners would be entitled to build a long road which could have been an even bigger eyesore, but is ancient history. He stated that when the applicant took the business risk to rezone, it is not the board's issue. He stated that stretch of open space is a huge part of the first impression we make on Vail coming in from the east. Mr. Feistman stated if you say yes to this project, despite the environmental project, what project would you say no to? Larry Stewart, Vail resident, stated that the plan b mitigation plan and the wildlife biologist showed the fallacy and nonscience behind the applicant's plan. He stated plan b is even worse for the sheep than the original plan. He stated the memo does not put a plan in place to do any of the mitigation efforts. He stated that it is Triumph's responsibility to mitigate the development, not the town. He stated that while they have a right to develop, but do not have a right to this project. Mr. Stockmar stated that the residents take incredible pride in the town and thanked everyone for their input. Mr. Stockmar closed public comments and asked for closing comments from Mr. O'Connor. Ms. Perez asked if there has been an analysis on the impact of what would have been built by right. Mr. O'Connor stated it was a complicated exercise and he has not had the time to do it. Mr. Gillette stated that the conservation should specifically be a wildlife conservation easement. Mr. O'Connor stated that finding the right person to hold the easement is important. He stated that they will work in earnest and with good faith to work with the town on the easement. He stated getting the details correct is important. Mr. Gillette asked if the HOA covenants can be changed. Mr. Gillette stated it is the HOA's responsibility to enforce a covenant. Mr. Gillette stated the Town of Vail has to hold some sort of right that those covenants can be changed. Mr. Spence stated if there is a condition of approval, HOA can't go against them. As an illustration, Mr. Spence stated that the town has an occupancy limit within the town code. Mr. Spence stated regulations can further restrict, but cannot exceed. There was a discussion regarding protection of the covenants. Mr. Gillette stated this needs to be followed up with the town attorney. Mr. Gillette asked who will follow-up with the Forest Service. Mr. Gennett stated staff has followed up with the Forest Service and we are waiting a response. Mr. Lockman asked about the fence. He stated there have been varying recommendations from the wildlife biologists. He stated the original plan had openings within it to allow the wildlife. Mr. O'Connor stated that no fence is a result of a collective discussion from the wildlife biologists. He noted the ability to add a fence if it is clear that people are going off the site. He stated originally there was 15 acres of land, tree cutting, enhancement across the entire area, pruning shrubs, was the original proposal and initially, was open what locations were appropriate. Mr. O'Connor stated that he has not had the opportunity to hear the board's comments on this current iteration. Mr. Kurz asked about the notes from the public comments that were made and asked what his answers to some of the questions and concerns are. Mr. O'Connor stated that the process with the wildlife mitigation plan and what we've focused on for the past four weeks has been very good progress. He stated that the original plan was good, but, refocusing the efforts and resources is fantastic. He stated mitigation plans don't work — he stated the opportunity they have is a big picture issue and putting a significant amount of effort for the herd. Mr. O'Connor stated that Vail Resorts for enforcement and the HOA is the vehicle for the town homes. Mr. O'Connor stated the payment timing needs to be addressed. Mr. O'Connor stated the underpass is an existing condition and hopes the town can work towards a remedy. Mr. O'Connor stated the criteria for development is provided on the sheet provided and stated that is what the decision should be based on. He stated they have scaled the project back in terms of unit count. Ms. Hopkins asked about the berm. She stated that when she looks at it, its 12' high and goes form 60' and becomes lower. Ms. Hopkins asked if another avalanche situation was being created because of the berm. Mr. O'Connor stated that he did not think so, and the berm sections provided. Mr. O'Connor stated the berm will need to be engineered and designed accordingly. There was a discussion regarding site section A of the berm plan. Mr O'Connor stated it will be engineered and a substantial amount of top soil, which will require temporary irrigation to get established. Ms. Hopkins stated that the snow and collection of snow is a concern because of the pitch. Mr. Stockmar closed the applicant's comments and turned to closing comments by staff. Mr. Spence stated that staff is available for any questions. Mr. Stockmar closed staff comments. Mr. Stockmar opened commissioner comments. Mr. Kjesbo reviewed the criteria he stated that at the first meeting he was concerned about the project not being more integrated into the hillside and the massing on the front end is too much and a towering building going down hill is too high. He stated that should have been put against the hillside. Second, parking, you keep trying to compare it to other properties, but it is three miles away and I think you should have two parking spaces for each unit. He stated that Vail Resorts may not always be in there managing and the property might be sold down the line and wants to make sure there's adequate parking. In the rock -fall, a question, if there was an incident in the future, does the town have a liability? Mr. O'Connor stated no. Mr. Kjesbo stated that part of the massing and size requires a new bus stop. He stated that he does not see how this project can start without first doing the mitigation in the other areas so they have somewhere to do. As Mr. Andre said, and others said, mitigation won't work we will lose the sheep and from an environmental standpoint I can't approve this. There was a discussion regarding the rules of order that have been established. Mr. Gillette agreed with Mr. Kjesbo on the parking and they are not there yet. He stated that the parking has multiple effects — the reason we're having trouble with parking on the site is probably because it's overbuilt. Parking has a curious way of affecting density and mass and if we stick with the recommendations we'll get enough parking and the right mass. He stated as far as the — if this does go to a vote to approve I think we need the conditions the money must be put up within a certain days after approval which would be what's fair? Mr. Gillette stated that the idea is we need to start mitigation prior to the first critical winter and so I'm torn on what you're responsible for and what you're not my first thought is you have to sit there and get everyone at the table and then I thought what if the Forest Service wont come to the table that's not your problem. Mr. Gillette stated that when he looks at the code in terms of the sheep, stated we need to determine that you can't save the sheep and therefore this is a done deal or we need to ameliorate the problem as best we can. He stated that it makes him wonder what Mr. Kjesbo would approve. I'm assuming Mr. Kjesbo means less density. Mr. Kjesbo agreed that a smaller project will have less effect. Mr. Gillette stated that its hard to quantify no matter what there will be access from the west side of the sit there's no other way to get on there he stated the fact he sees form the development is that the property itself is in prime range and so no matter what you build there you're going to radiate into the open space. Mr. Gillette stated that at that point we have to ameliorate and deciding what the best way to do that. Mr. Gillette stated he thinks $100k is a lot for a developer to put up and the land set aside is more than anyone else has put in the town. He stated that best way to spend it is offsite. He stated then looking at what is deficient in the mitigation plan — he can't support the bus stop on the west end of the project. PW has a one track mind. Mr. Gillette stated that the bus stop needs to go east and will withhold his vote on that until it goes. In his opinion we need to do everything feasible to mitigate for the sheep and moving the bus stop is totally feasible. Mr. Gillette stated no dogs for sure, no short term rentals we need to work on the HOA covenants to make sure they're enforceable; conservation easement needs to be wildlife specific. He stated there's a lot more ideas that came out of the round table about establishing an ongoing effort to project wild life is important and while they're not the developers responsibly, they are our responsibility. Mr. Gillette stated that there needs to be an agenda item on our next agenda on the town's responsibility and start talking about ongoing mitigation efforts — independent on going maintenance of wildlife habitat. Mr. Gillette stated that he is in support, not as it is now, but you have to get there on parking and the bus stop. Mr. Kurz thanked staff and the applicant and public for the process. Mr. Kurz stated that he project has become better through the process. He stated that he agrees with a couple of comments form his colleagues in terms of the fact that mitigation needs to start early, not after the fact, he continues to think that the bus stop contrary to Mr. Gillette should be on the west side and should be a turnaround. He stated that he did not see the crossing of the road as an improvement of the situation and the difficulty of getting to the east end of the development to the bus stop is a concern. Mr. Kurz stated that in terms of the criteria, the architecture, it is obviously an imposing project, however, is located not in the middle of a neighborhood and will become its own neighborhood. Mr. Kurz stated that he lives within a mile of this building and sees it as a doable in the scale and the massing that it is. Mr. Kurz stated the drawings have improved overtime to break up the perceived mass in terms of the setbacks, roof heights and materials changes. Mr. Kurz stated that he has an issue with parking and thinks it's still under parked at this stage and would like to see some improvement there. In terms of the mitigation, Mr. Kurz think it's pretty clear that from everything they have heard the sheep will be impacted one way or the other to a great degree or to a lesser degree we don't know what. He stated that the mitigation proposed if started at the right time and followed through is maybe as much as can be done in terms of protecting the sheep and that is not to say that the sheep will remain there. Mr. Kurz stated in terms of the geologist part that should be left to those with direct knowledge. Mr. Kurz stated that the landscape plan and the bus turn around on the west side would like to see extra trees in the area and there are somethings he is pleased about: the solar wiring installed and can be used in the future. Ms. Perez stated that staff and the applicant have done an excellent job along with the town. She stated that it is not perfect and this is about balance and in listening to commissioner comments, we're giving you conflicting view points and direction which is difficult. Ms. Perez stated that the issue here is that our ordinance and code does not require a development plan. Ms. Perez stated that rezoning 18 acres to open space and 5 for development was the deal. Ms. Perez stated that "no development" was not included in the staff memo because it would be a regulatory taking and the town would need to come up with fair market value for all the acres. Ms. Perez stated that their charge as commissioners is to see if the criteria have been met or not. Ms. Perez stated that she would also like Town Council to require an environmental impact statement along with rezoning. Ms. Perez commended the applicant for the most comprehensive wildlife mitigation plan. Ms. Perez stated that in terms of the mitigation plan — it still needs work. She noted that there should not be short term rentals or dogs, unless in accordance with the law. She stated the scale and massing from by right to 74 total units is a big improvement. Ms. Perez stated that mitigation should occur early. Ms. Perez stated that should would like there not to be smoking on site should be a part of the mitigation plan. Ms. Hopkins stated that she is interested in the site and thinks that when you have a site and learn about it before you design, you have about eight mitigations to go through, and one is a huge rock fall. She stated the rock -fall mitigation took 2.3-3 acres of the 5 acres so the site that can be built in is shrunk and shrunk even more so to have a driveway that works. Ms. Hopkins described the site constraints and asked if she applicant could work with the land more and sited debris flow and rock -fall issues. She stated to call the berm part of the landscaping — she wants to see the berm and an accurate depiction of what it looks like. She stated that she does not think this project is right for the site. Mr. Lockman thanked all the public comment and appreciated the passion and ability to be here. Mr. Lockman stated that they must make a decision on this application. He stated that he has put a lot of thought into this process. He stated he did not agree with the parking, he is ok with it as is. He stated the updated landscaping the bus stop should be on the west end of the project. He stated he didn't hear of a viable option for the east. He agreed with Mr. Gillette with the offsite mitigation and putting efforts into the best options. Mr. Lockman stated they have to vote on the application. He noted the more difficult part of the criteria is F, he stated it is a balancing act. He stated he is support of the application. Mr. Stockmar stated that they must come to a decision. He stated there is no master plan for East Vail, though there should be. He stated they have the obligation to review environmental impact reports and started they are not going beyond their purview when they market hose analysis and comment on it. Mr. Stockmar read through the PEC charter and reviewed the measures necessary to protect the county which includes — he thinks this endangers people. He stated that they also must consider other matters and to act in an advisory capacity when so requested. Mr. Stockmar stated that he has no question that the value of employees to this valley is vital and crucial to every business in town. He stated that is not the issue here. He stated that he does not think this is the right spot for a number of reasons. Mr. Stockmar stated they cannot dictate alternatives; they either approve or deny it. Mr. Stockmar stated that is it possible that this project be a violation of that law to protect and cause no harm to the Big Horn Sheep? Mr. Stockmar stated this is a question that has not been addressed. He stated that we have all reached the agreement that there is a threat to that herd. He stated he believes the sheep herd is seriously threatened. Mr. Stockmar stated it is significantly threatened by this development. Mr. Stockmar stated that comprehensive covenants need to be adopted including banning pets and stopping the incursion of people in the surrounding area and should include stiff fines. He stated the parking question is still unresolved and finds that equating this project to other projects close to town is nonsense. He stated that enough parking has not been provided. He stated the parking is adequate for the town homes; however the 42 multi family building parking is not adequate. Mr. Stockmar did not find sufficient evidence has not been provided to support a request for lower parking ratios than the standard set in the code. Mr. Stockmar stated that Big Horn Road is not a pedestrian friendly environment, while improvements are coming. Mr. Stockmar stated that he would like everything to be done and legally binding before construction starts. Mr. Stockmar stated that last that Town Council members provided anecdotal experiences from West Vail, and do not have the local knowledge experience the underpass daily. Mr. Stockmar stated in regards to the berm and rock -fall issues; a large rock fell off the cliff about 200 meters from his home, which is the same strata. Mr. Stockmar stated this development is substantially closer than the other homes further east in Vail are. The diagram provided shows that it is literally on the cliff at a very steep angle. He stated it has become clear that this project is the wrong place and contrary to their environmental stewardship and does not lend itself to safe construction and it should not be developed. Mr. Stockmar invited a motion. Mr. Gillette stated they should give the applicant an opportunity to table. Mr. Stockmar asked for a response. Mr. Lockman reviewed the commissioner's comments. Mr. Gillette stated that he may sway on the bus stop location staying to the east. Mr. Gillette stated the purpose of government is to solve problems. Mr. O'Connor stated he would like to discuss with the PEC. Mr. O'Connor stated that Mr. Kjesbo's point on massing asked if three stories would be sufficient. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he needs to see it, his bigger problem is the sheep and from what he is hearing from five different experts is that we don't know if the mitigation efforts and is an environmental concern that they will go away. He stated the massing would help but that remains that the big horn sheep still there. Mr. O'Connor asked if bringing the parking into town code, and clarified that it's not just related to mass. Mr. Gillette stated that parking and massing go hand in hand and a smaller project would be more agreeable with the project. Mr. O'Connor inquired as the wild life mitigation plan, the process that has been set up the timing of the work the commitment to getting that plan in a form that is approved before we start construction and start some more clarity on that — is that what you're looking for? Mr. Lockman stated that yes it needs to happen before construction and be fully funded. Mr. Gillette stated that getting the Forest Service in the room is big. Mr. O'Connor stated that he has tried and it's not gotten anywhere. Mr. O'Connor stated that is where having the town as a partner is huge. Mr. Gennett stated that the U.S. Forest Service was invited to the round table discussion and they did not attend. Mr. O'Connor stated they have some work to do in terms of the plan and requested to table. Mr. O'Connor requested to continue the hearing. Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120 min. 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 22, 2019 PEC Results Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: August 26, 2019 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 082619.pdf August 26, 2019 PEC Meeting Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl August 26, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John - Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing Minutes development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) 120 min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Jonathan Spence General Conditions of Approval 1. Certificates of Occupancy for this project will only be issued in a manner that maintains a minimum of 70% of the total built Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as deed -restricted employee housing units. At no time shall the unrestricted units for which Certificates of Occupancy are issued exceed 30% of the total built GRFA. 2. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 3. All plans submitted with the building permit application for property within geologically sensitive areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation. 4. In lieu of the previously proposed on-site wildlife habitat mitigation plan, the applicant shall perform the commitments outlined in the August16, 2019 memo titled "Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Incorporating TOV's Biologist Recommendations" submitted by the applicant. This includes a $100,000 financial contribution by the applicant made prior to April 15 in the year that the applicant will pull a building permit, , to the Town of Vail or other such agency or entity determined in consultation with the Town of Vail and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, for the purpose of ongoing wildlife habitat improvements, monitoring and study. If said funds are not in fact spent within five (5) years of the date of the contribution, the funds shall be returned to the applicant within 30 days after the expiration of the 5 -year period. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit 5. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide a plan for bus stops in the vicinity of the eastern end of the development to include stops on both the north and south side of the Frontage Road, to be reviewed and approved by staff. These improvements shall be financed by the applicant and completed prior to the first certificate of occupancy for the development. 6. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Town of Vail, a slope monitoring program, during construction activities, near the ancient landslide deposits at the east end of the site, in a form and manner to be determined by the applicant's professional geologist. 7. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Town of Vail a plan for monitoring system with video recordings for enforcement of wildlife mitigation measures and trespass in prohibited areas and take corrective action to remedy trespass, which recording and records of enforcement shall be made available to the Town of Vail upon request. This condition shall continue with the property owner and manager of the Homeowners Association responsible for the property. 8. Prior to creation of a curb cut and installation of improvements (bus stop and sidewalk) in Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) the right- of-way, applicant shall obtain written approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation. A copy of such approval or permit shall be provided to the Town of Vail prior to related construction activities commencing. Prior to Issuance of the First Certificate of Occupancy 9. Prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall develop an Environmental Education Program to educate the residents and owners of the Booth Heights Neighborhood about the environmental sensitivity of the site and the vicinity. The Education Program shall be reviewed by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager and approved by the Town of Vail. The Education Program shall include, at minimum, information on the mapped wildlife habitats, potential human impacts to bighorn sheep, elk, black bears, and peregrine falcon. The Education Program shall clearly describe the activities and uses that are prohibited on site (including dogs, outdoor food gardens, bird feeders, feeding or harassing of wildlife) regulations on trash enclosures, prohibition on construction new trails, and prohibition on accessing the area to the north of the berm/fence. A copy of the Environmental Education Program shall be an attachment to all leases and provided to all tenants prior to occupancy, and shall also be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to inform future property owners. A copy of the Education Program and Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall be kept on file with the Homeowners Association and shall be provided to all leaseholders and shall be made available within reasonable notice to any tenant, unit owner or the Town of Vail, upon request. 10. Applicant shall enter into a protective covenant with the Town of Vail, to be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council, that will bind the property, its current owners and all subsequent owners, to restrictions related to the prohibition of dogs other than those required to be permitted by law, prohibition on short term rentals, prohibition on the construction of trails, and prohibiting access to the 17.9 acre NAP parcel to the east. 11. Applicant shall install signs along the south side of the rock -fall berm clearly stating that access to the berm and properties to the north of the development site, and to the adjacent 17.9 acre NAP parcel, is prohibited The location, number and content of signs shall be proposed by the applicant and approved by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager. 12. Applicant shall include a fence easement on the first subdivision plat recorded for this development, which easement shall generally be located along the south side of the rock -fall berm, for the potential future installation of wildlife fencing should it be determined necessary by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 13. Applicant shall work with the Town of Vail in good faith to pursue a conservation easement to permanently restrict the use of the 17.9 acre NAP parcel by obtaining a conservation easement from a land trust. This conservation easement will prohibit the construction of structures, but will also preserve the ability for wildlife enhancements, as well as other requirements for the development of the Booth Heights neighborhood by the applicant such as geological monitoring and testing and soil stabilization activities. The primary purpose and related allowable use of the property shall be for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife. 14. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, a copy of the Homeowners Association documents shall be provided to the Town of Vail, and shall include an inspection and maintenance plan for the rock -fall hazard mitigation berm. The plan shall include an inspection schedule. A copy of the inspection schedule and maintenance activities shall be provided to the Town of Vail upon request. 15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the deed - restricted employee housing units, the applicant shall record with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, the Town of Vail Type IV employee housing deed -restriction covenant. Commissioner Stockmar called the hearing to order. Mr. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, presented some comments. Mr. Mire stated that there was a letter stating the Mr. Lockman should be disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Lockman stated he works as an Environmental Sustainability Manager for Vail Resorts, that there has been no influence from his employer, or no impact to his employment as a result of this hearing. Mr. Mire asked if there would be any compensatory benefit to Mr. Lockman as a result of the hearing. Mr. Lockman stated no Mr. Mire asked whether he could remain impartial given his employment status. Mr. Lockman replied in the affirmative. Mr. Jonathan Spence made some comments regarding changes that have been made since 2 weeks ago. Mr. Spence stated the unit count and bedroom mix has been changed. He stated the unit count has been reduced to 30 units, a reduction in 12 units by converting 24 units into four bedrooms. The result is that the project now conforms to the Town's parking requirements. He stated that it does not change the total bedroom count or the GRFA. What the reconfiguration does change is the allowable occupancy per the Vail Town Code. Mr. Spence stated for a 2 bedroom unit you could have 6 people. He stated the change reduces maximum occupancy from 252 to 228 persons. Mr. Spence stated the wildlife mitigation plan has been further modified. He noted there was an update included in the packet and a memo was submitted by Kristen Bertuglia, and staff is available to answer any questions. Mr. Spence stated that some commission members wanted to ban all outdoor smoking. Mr. Spence stated that the applicant has proposed an outdoor smoking area. Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development, provided an update of the elements that have changed since the last meeting. Mr. O'Connor stated the unit count has been reduced. He stated they looked hard at shrinking the size of the multifamily buildings. He said it was not the right thing to do for the plan. He stated that they took the PEC's direction to meet the parking requirements seriously. Mr. O'Connor stated that EHUs were a community need. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the criteria for review and referred to the previous meeting's testimony. Mr. O'Connor, relying on a slide titled "Comparison to TOV Residential Districts" discussed the density level of the proposal compared to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. O'Connor stated they have added additional tree coverage for the new proposed bus stop. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the designated smoking areas on the property. He noted it's important to provide these spaces, as no smoking is allowed inside the units. He stated these areas are contained within the site and should not be a wildfire nuisance. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed criteria E and stated that many pages of environmental reports have been combined and reviewed. He noted that there has been a comprehensive review of the proposal and noted their wildlife mitigation plan. Relying on a slide titled "Revised Onsite Wildlife Mitigation Plan" Mr. O'Connor reviewed what the changes have been: mainly a conservation easement granting a covenant to the Town of Vail. He noted that it also allows the Town to enforce wildlife violations and moving the wildlife fencing, additional screening, prohibition on short-term rentals, prohibition of dogs. Mr. O'Connor noted a $100,000 contribution to be paid prior to April 15 of year of work. Mr. O'Connor stated that he has demonstrated compliance with the Housing district criteria and asked for approval for the proposal Mr. Spence stated that US Forest Service and a wildlife biologist are available to answer any questions. Mr. O'Connor stated 7 sheets were resubmitted as changes — the interiors changed. Mr. Spence stated the only changes were the floor plans and some landscape treatment around the west end bus stop. Mr. Gillette: Inquired about the wildlife mitigation plan. Mr. O'Connor stated that there is one document that summarized everything and noted that in addition the PEC can impose conditions of approval, which supersede the other documents. Ms. Perez: Inquired about condition number 7 — line 6 and noted a stray comma. Condition 8 line 9 the language should say except as required by law. Ms. Perez: Are you in agreement with all these conditions? Mr. O'Connor: Stated he is acknowledging the conditions of approval as a requirement to get this approved. The board then discussed with Mr. O'Connor the mechanisms in place to regulate the restrictions on the property. Mr. Stockmar was not convinced that the things in place are adequate to protect the environment and species. Mr. Stockmar stated he is not sure they are adequate as preventative. Mr. Stockmar asked about protection from injuries or damage from rockslides. Mr. O'Connor stated that the studies that have been done and the identification of the severity is half of what is next door while the mitigation efforts are the same as next door. Mr. O'Connor stated they have the plan and engineering in place and the Town's code identifies what needs to be done in order to develop in these areas. Mr. Stockmar stated that once an issue has been put on the table, their purview expands to include those issues. Jonathan Spence stated that the application as proposed today is for the west end bus stop. Page 2 of Mr. O'Connor's memo states no major cuts, slopes or paths at the front of the site. Mr. O'Connor stated a landscape path at the far end of the site is proposed to maintain access. Mr. Lockman inquired about the enforcement of the protective covenants. Mr. Spence stated that it is not the Town of Vail's sole responsibility, the HOA is responsible, and if it is failing, then the Town may step in. Mr. Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that largely speaking, we don't know what the efficacy of the mitigation measures will be. He noted the offsite habitat treatments will be done with the best practices but we don't know what the permanent effect will actually be. He stated that they've gotten to a good place that will at least minimize impacts and they still have concerns and questions about enforcement and seed money and funding availability after the 5 year time frame. Mr. Duval stated that local extrication is a possibility and they cannot say defensibly that that is not a possible outcome. Mr. Gillette inquired about the survival of the sheep without this development. There was a discussion regarding the impact of the development on the winter range. Mr. Aaron Mayville, US Forest Service, answered questions from the board. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Mayville stated that they are looking at two scales of habitat improvement. The first is looking at some relatively simple habitat measures in the triangle trip about 30 acres. He stated that can be done quickly. He stated the second is the larger scale which has more hurdles; he noted that maybe that is the best thing to do. He stated that is really prescribed fire across the range. He stated they have a policy direction not to do prescribe fires within the wilderness. He stated that we have two resource areas wildlife habitat and wildlife values that are clashing. He stated that in the next couple of months they will review the bigger habitat improvement. Mr. Mayville stated they have been taking steps to explore the possibility of doing this. There was a discussion over the pros and cons of prescribed burns. Mr. Lockman asked how confident Mr. Mayville is with the wildlife protection plan. Mr. Mayville he stated if we can improve habitat and there is $100,000 to do that, it's a good thing. There was a discussion regarding closures and other tools available to protect wilderness. Mr. Gene Byrne, retired Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that for the last 17 years of his career he worked in the Vail area. Ms. Melanie Woolever, Retired U.S Forest Service for 30 years, was the bighorn sheep leader. Ms. Woolever stated that she and two others submitted reports. Ms. Woolever stated that overall, there's nothing about the project that is going to benefit the bighorn sheep. She stated it's hard to know what the disturbance impacts will be, though we know there are impacts. She stated that there are a lot of unknowns. She stated reducing the amount of impact from the public is good. Mr. Byrne stated that offsite habitat improvements would be more beneficial. He noted that it is difficult to make bighorn sheep habitat out of an aspen grove. There was a discussion regarding the impact of the proposed berm and whether or not there should be a closure. The wildlife biologists were in support of the bus stop to the east. Mr. Stockmar asked if the proposed mitigations re enough to offset the impact to the sheep. Ms. Mayville would not give a response to whether the proposed mitigations would protect the bighorn sheep. She stated that there is not enough information to know. Mr. Byrne stated that he is encouraged with the changes that have been proposed: putting the mitigation efforts offsite, prohibiting dogs, putting seed money towards habitat restoration. He stated he did not think anybody could predict — he noted the biggest threat to the bighorn sheep herd is closely associated with domestic sheep and pneumonia. He noted that domestic sheep can carry pneumonia and pass it on to bighorn sheep. Mr. Gillette asked what the best use of $6 million would be — to buy this lot or put the money towards offset. Mr. Byrne advocated for the offsite habitat work. He noted this is on the edge of the prime sheep winter range. He stated if it was right below the cliffs, it would be different. He stated this area is the only mapped winter range that we know. Mr. Byrne described how strange it is that the sheep return to this area and it is a very special area. Ms. Woolever stated that the challenge is not just the 5 acres, it's the associated disturbance that comes with it. She stated enforcing this and all the restrictions in place, ameliorating the disturbance is going to be really difficult. She stated the habitat restoration also needs to happen. She stated that if it were up to her she'd say not to put the developed there but noted it is not the loss of 5 acres, it is also the assorted disturbance. Mr. Stockmar closed the presentation by the applicant and staff and opened the meeting to public comment. Public Comment: Larry Stewart, East Vail, stated that the reduction in the unit count does nothing to correct the problem of the project. He stated it only has an incremental effect on the number of people who will be living there. The mass is the same; it will still stand out like a sore thumb. He stated that nothing has been improved. He stated that the mitigation must be implemented — past tense. He stated that Triumph is walking away from their responsibility to mitigate from their harm. He asked the board to turn down the project. Susan Bristol, Vail resident stated that the PEC members are asked to approve a plan without the appropriate tools. She stated that a 3-D model is a pretty basic tool and stated the board has been given a slow dribble of a flat site plan and flat drawings that do not accurately demonstrate the topography and masses. Joe Staufer, Vail resident, stated 3 wildlife biologist came to the same conclusion: this project should move somewhere else if you want to save the bighorn sheep. He stated that this project is a bad deal for the Town of Vail. He stated it is a bad deal because when you come up for an alpine visit this will be the first thing people will see coming up from Denver. He stated that it does not address the problems it will create. Burke Chestnut, East Vail Resident, discussed safety and pedestrian concerns and stated they were not evaluated. He stated that there have not been any up to date safety features. He asked, who will pay for upgrades while it is a direct impact from this development? He asked, who would be liable should something happen? Ann Marie Mueller, born in Chamonix (France), she stated that anyone who has a decision to make should go and sees Chamonix and see the destruction from the rock slides. She stated that you have to see the worst to make a decision that can be based on the utmost caution. Kevin Denton, lucky enough to live in one of the Town of Vail units at Chamonix He stated that he is in support of this. He stated more people like him need the opportunity to live closer to work and have access to public transportation route. He stated that more and more people are going that route because you don't want to pay for parking when you're going to work. He stated that having people say that this isn't the right site for this development is more or less saying that people like him shouldn't live in this area, and stated the it should be a hard yes. Tom Hopkins, Vail Resident, stated that the essence of the issue is that there are two very good uses competing. He stated that we want affordable housing and want to preserve the beauty of the valley and the bighorn sheep. He stated that for affordable housing there are other options. Diane Coggan, Vail resident, stated that she is proud to say she has raised a great son because of the people like Tom Hopkins, who assisted her when her son went missing. She stated that she loved the community and asked what will happen to everybody with grey hair is gone. Jonathan Staufer, Vail resident, stated that he submitted 3200 signatures on a petition. He stated that this is a great project in the wrong place. He stated that the documents that make up the planning and zoning codes envisioned a town that lives in harmony with its environment, he said this doesn't. Molly Morales, Vail Local Housing Authority, she stated that the housing authority fully supports the project. Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, asked why we've not seen an image showing the berm in relation to the architecture. She stated that the project should be limited to only service dogs. She stated smoking of all kinds should be limited. Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, spoke to pedestrian safety. She stated she is a runner and has had many close calls. She spoke to the serious concerns with pedestrian safety and asked the board to take this seriously. Joan Carnie, Vail Resident, stated that in the early days there was a thought of building a gas station at exit 180 for East Vail and was denied because the people who lived there wanted it to be a low-density neighborhood always. She stated she wants to keep east Vail a nice area. She stated that the employees live down valley and come up here, they still enjoy the whole experience and there are some opportunities opening up for employees. She stated that this is a money maker for Triumph and Vail Resorts and asked if they've looked around for other places Cindy Steimle, Vail resident, asked if Vail wants to be known as the exterminator of bighorn sheep. She stated we are custodians not of Vail Resorts employees, but of the land and animals. She stated it is their right and responsibility to protect the animals. She stated that Vail Resorts will be known as the destroyers of the dwindling protection of the bighorn sheep. Grace Poganski, Vail residents, stated that this property is in Geologically Hazardous Area and read from the code. Pete Feistmann, Vail resident, discussed the size of the building. He stated that the $100,000 mitigation is a pittance and affront to the sheep. He described the staff memo's private covenant comment. Kaye Ferry, Vail resident, referred to the wall and stated that the language on the wall should be used as the criteria for every project to be reviewed. She stated they are being led to believe that if this project is not approved then there will be no employees. She stated we have choices. She stated there is half of Timber Ridge that has not yet been redeveloped and that density should be increased. She stated that Ever Vail has been approved with hundreds of units and there's been no movement. She stated that we have many choices but need the nerve and determination to enforce those choices. She said this is a very easy decision and vote to preserve this land. J im Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he was part of a group that planned East Vail. He stated that they came to the conclusion that this site was an undevelopable property due to the natural hazards and wildlife issues. He stated they could not come to an agreement on the acquisition of the property. He stated he and others are trying to defend the integrity of the community. Mike Steimle, Vail resident, stated that this past winter there was a lot of snow. He stated that the whole herd of sheep came and invaded their neighborhood because they didn't have anywhere else to go and now they're trying to take away more space from the sheep. He stated a lot of his neighbors were mad because sheep ate what they paid for. Tom Vucich, Vail resident, stated that the applicant stated they are seeking to ensure protection of the wildlife and stated that is a complete falsehood. Mr. Vucich stated that Mr. Lockman had some concerns about the accuracy of some of the renderings. He stated that enforcement does not happen and cited examples of failure enforcement. Mary McDougall, Vail resident, in support of the project and urged the PEC to give more opportunities to live here. Tony Ryerson, Vail resident, stated that this is a huge gamble and the risk is not worth it. He stated there will be no undoing if the herd vanishes which is what the experts are saying. He stated once the project begins and excavators come in he does not think any mitigation is going to have them come back. He stated the concession that the applicant has offered in the reduction of the number of units and money is a nice gesture, but it would feel like a conscience bribe. He stated it will be a big scar. Chairman Stockmar closed public comment Mr. O'Connor stated he has no closing comments Mr. Spence stated he is available for any questions. He noted the ADA ramp exhibit was just to show what would be necessary for an East Vail bus stop. Mr. Lockman stated he wanted more information on the bus stop options. Mr. O'Connor stated that they are proposing is a bus stop on the west side of the property with the additional screening. Mr. O'Connor stated that there is a landscape path wooden steps, buried in the snow during the winter. Mr. Stockmar stated there is a conflict between the memo, his statements and the drawings. Mr. O'Connor stated they are trying not to see east -west barriers. Mr. O'Connor stated that if the bus stop was located to the east there would be substantially more paths for an ADA compliant route to the location. There was a discussion regarding the location of the bus stop. Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Byrne which is worse, having the bus stop to the west or allowing the sheep to come into the bus stop and getting blocked to the east. Mr. Lockman stated that the proposed design created a clear area Ms. Hopkins stated they could create another berm to prevent the sheep. Mr. Byrne stated because there is the road that goes down the west side and the frontage road and the heavy impact is uphill from the sheep, his feeling is that these 1.7 acres will be lost to sheep. He stated that Rick Thompson felt they may come in at the winter, though has changed his opinion. There was a discussion between the board, wildlife biologists and Colorado Parks and Wildlife on the best location for the bus stop. Mr. Lockman thanked the public comments. He stated that they have to look at the development application today and make a decision based on the criteria. Mr. Lockman stated that he has learned a lot of about the importance of pedestrian safety and stated that he is hopeful about the situation as the Town Council has approved a budget specifically to look at the underpass and noted that pedestrian safety is one of his highest priorities. He stated he asked for scaling and massing which was provided by the applicant. He noted that over the years models have been provided. Over the years and he's never seen a physical model. Mr. Lockman stated in terms of the bus stop, he is struggling because it is about reducing the impact. He stated he wants to hear the other commissioners' opinions on it. He noted if there is a true benefit of moving the bus stop to the east he is open to the idea, though feels it would be more suited on the west. He stated that some improvements that have been made since the last meeting are helpful. Mr. Lockman stated partnering with the Town for increased enforcement is helpful. Mr. Lockman stated the longer- term idea of the permanent conservation easement is a must. Ms. Hopkins stated that the Town of Vail has standards and the PEC has standards to uphold. She stated the number one criterion is the building design, which is her strength. She stated this building will last until 2060 or 2070. She stated the project showed in East Vail were Timber Falls and Racquet Club, which are aging. She stated the applicant needs to up their game in terms of design. She cited concerns with the roof heights, and the windows being the same size. She stated there is no character and it looks like any neighborhood in USA. She stated it does not work with the topography and needs to be better. She stated that the massing is huge and dense. The way she sees it, the berm takes two acres of the land, 60' high on the east side and has 2 acres for the buildings, and that takes it to 61 units on 2 acres or 30 units an acre. She stated that is not what was originally thought of and it is crammed. Ms. Hopkins stated the berm is part of the massing and the only thing we ever received was a flat elevation, which if it was in the perspective provided it would have overwhelmed the building, and stated it is huge and impactful. She discussion item B — responsive to the site and the community. She stated the project does not respond to the site at all and the proposal will just bulldoze the site. For the open space and the landscaping, the south side of the berm which is visible, the top half is at 1:1 slope, the second half is a 2:1 slope. I don't know how you can keep topsoil on or get anything to grow on there. She stated that it is difficult that it gets counted as landscaping. Ms. Hopkins stated that part of it is sustainability and in 2015, the Town of Vail was to be a sustainable destination. This project is just going in bulldozing and filling and excavating into the north side. She stated that to her it is offensive that the berm was not seen, it is disingenuous. She stated in terms of the pedestrian and vehicles she prefers to move the bus stop to the east. The environmental issues, the wildlife, she did not see how any of the mitigation efforts will work. She noted the next 8 mitigations includes rock -fall, landslide, wetlands slope stability existing unknown soils condition, existing springs 2-3 avalanche paths and debris flow. She stated she has read all of the engineering reports and the construction related issues have been somewhat addressed and did not know if blasting was required. Ms. Hopkins stated that the berm is designed for spherical boulders but there is also littered on the site 20-25' limestone slabs and cited a concern if those were dislodged. She stated that Chamonix is well done and works with the land. She stated they did not bulldoze the whole site. She stated it doesn't seem like they're there yet to do this. F: compliance with other plans — she noted that action item 2 in the 1994 Open Lands Plan and action item 23 in 2018 Open Lands Plan, the purpose is to protect environmentally sensitive land form development. Ms. Hopkins stated it's still an option for Town of Vail to purchase the parcel. She read from the Vail Land Use Plan. She stated that she did not think the project is there yet and the whole project will look like a bulldozed swath. Ms. Perez stated this is about balance and whether or not the applicant has met the criteria. She stated they have asked the applicant to make a lot of changes. She stated the applicant has gone above and beyond any other mitigation plan ever submitted before this commission. She noted it was helpful to hear from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the wildlife biologists. She stated their criteria is not elimination of environmental impact, it is mitigation as necessary. She stated the mitigation plan as submitted is a pretty good plan, as said by the experts. Ms. Perez stated that they need to take into consideration what has happened in the last 5 meetings. She stated that they serve at the pleasure of the Town Council who gives them their criteria and standards. She stated that she thinks we need a vote today. Mr. Kurz stated they need a vote today. He stated this is one of the more difficult decisions they have had to make. Mr. Kurz stated after all the pros and cons brought up by public staff, consultants and this commission, that they must review the application under their criteria. He stated the applicant has done an adequate job responding to the commission and the public. He stated he fully understands and accepts that the sheep will be impacted, however, he thinks the mitigation proposed and is being supported by the wildlife groups to some degree is helping the project. He stated the parking issue has been resolved. Mr. Kurz stated this application with the conditions for approval protects the Town in the best way it can be protected. He stated he would be voting in favor. Mr. Gillette stated that there is a properly vetted application. He stated that it will be up to Town Council to decide whether or not to acquire the site. He stated that dollar per dollar, the Town is better off spending the money on offsite habitat enhancement. He stated moving the bus stop to the east would be the responsible thing to do. He stated there is no safety issue with people crossing the street — while the underpass is a different story. He stated that it is the Town's responsibility to get a bike path or sidewalk there. Mr. Gillette stated the Town needs a budget for wildlife enhancement. He stated our houses have been built in wildlife habitat and stated that we're all responsible for this problem and should use our tax dollars to solve it. He stated the real shame would be for Council to do nothing, and to not throwing money to save this herd would be a shame. He stated he is in support and wants to have a conversation about the bus stop. Mr. Kjesbo stated that there are major issues with bulk and mass and there is a better way to step and utilize the hillside. He stated there is too much bulk and mass. He stated the parking solution is not a loophole and has been part of the Town Code for a long time. He stated on the rock mitigation the rules have been followed. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he didn't think that smoking on the property can be stopped. Mr. Kjesbo stated that the rules and regulations that are going to have to be imposed on this project are crazy: no dogs, no smoking, then to have to have the Town possibly come in and enforce is wrong, so he has a problem with that. Part of the mitigation hearing from the experts includes no bus stop on the west end. He stated it goes on the east end then we have pedestrians in danger, another reason he cannot support the project. He stated he did not think $100,000 is enough as he's heard from the other meetings. He stated that if this project were to go forward the offsite mitigation must happen before this project starts. He did not know how any other way would work. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he agreed with Mr. Gillette on the underpass and the Town should make it safe. He stated that nobody on these decks on south side will be able to have a conversation it is going to be loud. Last thing, according to the Open Lands Plan that this commission forwarded to Council, they talk specifically about environmentally sensitive lands and talk about this site. He read from the Open Lands Plan about this area, these 93 acres are critical bighorn sheep habitat and make them unique. He stated he would not be in support. Mr. Stockmar stated that he concurred with Kjesbo and Hopkins and stated this site is extraordinarily environmentally sensitive and this parcel has been discussed in length. He stated due to errors in record keeping nobody seemed to know who owned this property. He stated that it was clearly in the county records. Mr. Stockmar stated that several of the findings he is opposed — building design with respect to architecture, massing scale and orientation, none are compatible with the site. The architecture looks like it belongs in a town in Iowa. It's not original, it's not interesting. He stated the character of the buildings do not belong in the mountains. The character is fundamentally not in character with or in compliance with similar properties in town; it would stand out like a sore thumb. He stated that bulldozing of the mountain side is required, which is a significant violation of that location, and there is nothing about it that is compatible with the site or adjacent properties. Mr. Stockmar stated that there are other properties that fit in with the neighborhood and this is nothing like those. The building uses are not designed to be responsive to the site. The only way to develop this is to bulldoze it almost flat. He stated that he does not believe that it is responsive to the community as a whole. The open space and landscaping relies on what is there and planting some trees, and bulldozing the rest. Mr. Stockmar stated there is not adequate buffering between the proposed uses. He stated the pedestrian and vehicular circulation is not designed to provide safe circulation of the site. He stated the access to the west is fine except it may impede part of the Town of Vail property. Mr. Stockmar stated that the applicant represented there would be no paths obstructing the front of the site, but there are paths proposed. He stated that the parking issues on paper have been addressed; he still counts people in cars and sees a lot of people in a lot of cars. He stated the environmental impacts have been identified and he doesn't see that the mitigation solves the issue. He stated that there is no East Vail comprehensive plan and he would like to see one. He'd like to see more attention devoted to the development of that plan. Mr. Stockmar stated that this development is dependent on significant financial expenditures. He stated that he strongly concurred with Commissioner Hopkins and Kjesbo. Mr. Lockman inquired of staff on the current bus stop. Mr. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, Public Works, discussed the existing bus stop and the direction of traffic that it serves. Mr. Kassmel stated if the bus stop were to be moved to the east side, he recommended that there would be more standard bus pull off constructed and have pedestrian crossing with the flashing beacons. He stated that the west bus stop is the best from a residential safety standpoint. Upon inquiry form Mr. Gillette, Mr. O'Connor stated that in regards to improvements, that would be acceptable if there is room to do it and would require CDOT approval. Mr. Gillette stated that he would like a condition of approval that says the bus stop goes to the east and gets approval from CDOT, and if there are problems with that then the applicant can return to the PEC for a revision. Mr. Lockman stated that if moving the bus stop reduces the impact to the wildlife, he can be OK with that. Ms. Perez and Mr. Kurz were comfortable with moving the bus stop to the east. Mr. Kurz stated that earlier today and through some of the other meetings there were some innuendo and some maligning comments made in regard to Town staff. He stated he has served on numerous Councils and Planning Commissions and Design Review Board and have gotten to respect staff and thinks its inappropriate to point out that staff might be in on the side of a developer or staff is working underground. Mr. Kurz stated these are professional people who know what they are doing and make mistakes as everyone does, but is inappropriate to malign staff without solid knowledge of something that has been going on which has not gone on. Mr. Kurz moved to approve the request for Booth Heights Development Plan for a new housing developed located at 3700 North Frontage Road East subject to 14 conditions of approval. Mr. Gillette requested that the motion include moving the bus stop to east side and using the existing bus stop on the north and the developer is responsible for the cost and installation. Mr. Kassmel stated that the developer should be responsible for building adequate bus stop on both north and south side of the frontage road and the financing of them. Mr. Kurz noted the conditions as amended and the findings on page 7 of the staff memo dated 8/26/19 Gillette seconded the motion. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (4-3). Ayes: (4) Gillette, Kurz, Lockman, Perez Nays: (3) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Stockmar 2.2. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 Minutes 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 Min. Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence presented. He stated that when the memo was submitted last Thursday, the unit count was not updated. He stated it is not an issue. Mr. Spence stated the application meets the criteria. Commissioner Stockmar called for public comment. There were no comments. Commissioner Stockmar invited a motion. Commissioner Lockman moved to approve. Commissioner Kurz seconded. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (5-2). Ayes: (5) Gillette, Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez Nays: (2) Hopkins, Stockmar 2.3. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust the common lot line between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0030) 10 min. Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condo, represented by JS Designs Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence presented and stated that this is a proposal to adjust the common lot line between two properties. He noted that this type of application should be out of the PEC's purview. He stated based on the existing code it does require PEC review. There were no additional comments. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, 20 min Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create a common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate development lots, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0037) 20 min. Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Erik Gates Commissioners Stockmar and Kurz stated that they did site visits on their own time over the weekend. Planner Gates presented. Mr. Gates stated that the original lot is approximately 1 acre and this application proposed to split into two equal size lots. Mr. Gates stated that all Primary/Secondary zoning standards have been met. Commissioner Kjesbo inquired why they're dividing the lot. There was a discussion regarding the split and impact to the variance Mr. Kjesbo stated that the added density is not a problem in the neighborhood. David Hilb, Property Owner, stated that it meets all the criteria. He stated the subdivision meets the criteria to subdivide. It's not a precedent since its meets the criteria. Mr. Stockmar opened the public comment. Public Comment Zach Varon, Vail resident, stated that it would be an improvement and pretty cool and nice balance between the super mansions. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Gillette, Hopkins, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (1) Kjesbo 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in 30 min Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the 10% maximum driveway site coverage restriction for developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0028) 30 min. Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates presented the application. He stated the applicant would like to get the development above the 40% slopes to a flatter part of the site. Mr. Gates stated that these 40% slopes don't count as buildable area. He stated that they allow single and two-family units to build on those slopes. Mr. Gates stated that the code encourages development outside of the 40%, which is what the applicant is trying to do. Mr. Gates reviewed a map and discussed surrounding lots. Mr. Gates stated that the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed a conceptual application. Mr. Gates stated that DRB wanted him to share that they are in support of not building on the steep portion. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Lockman, Mr. Hilb stated they have not designed the duplexes yet and have not determined how much area will or will not be snow melted. He stated even without the lot split they would need the same variance. Mr. John Martin discussed the red diagrams showing the driveways. He stated that the regulations on maximum 10% driveway on steep slopes is not for a lot like this. Ms. Hopkins inquired about the driveway grade Mr. Kurz asked by how much of the driveway is over 10%. Mr. Gates stated 22% on lot B, and 27% on the other lot. Mr. Manley stated once they take the 10% rule out, they are meeting the same requirements as everyone else — including the landscaping standards. Mr. Manley stated while there will need to be substantial retaining walls, they will meet all the engineering and other requirements. Commissioner Stockmar called for public comments There were none submitted. No closing comments. Commissioner comments: Commissioner Lockman inquired as to why this code exists. Mr. Gates stated he could not find why this code was created. He stated this lot is unique in the location where the lot is steep. He stated most are steep towards the rear of the lot, not in front. Mr. Lockman stated they can build on the lot without the variance. Brian Gillette moved to approve. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Gillette, Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (1) Lockman 2.6. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041) 30 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker presented the application. Mr. Gillette inquired about the Environmental Impact Report Mr. Neubecker stated that the Environmental Impact Report was waived by the Administrator for this phase of the project, until more impactful projects, like utility grade solar panels above the retaining wall. Ms. Perez asked where the Environmental Impact Report was. Mr. Gillette stated that he has an issue with the rock -fall mitigation and stated we don't know the best way to do the rock -fall mitigation. Mr. Neubecker stated that rock -fall mitigation is not proposed with this application. Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that he has not been involved in the conversations but stated that the proposal is removing available habitat. He stated he is not prepared to comment because he has not reviewed the project. Mr. Duval stated cumulative impacts should be taken into account for impact to the herd. Mr. Greg Hall stated that they were trying to work forward. There was a discussion regarding the phasing of the projects at the Public Works site and when an Environmental Impact Report is required. There was a discussion regarding shoring walls and the project life span. The commission discussed a desire to have an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Duval stated the two sites (this site and Booth Heights) are unique and different subsets of the herd. He stated the previous report is not applicable and a unique analysis would be needed for this project. Commissioner Stockmar stated that this site is already disturbed. He stated he wants an efficient, effective approach that does not cause more damage to the sheep. He stated getting the wall built in a near term period makes more sense. Mr. Hall stated there is good reason to do the reports. He stated that they are trying to figure out which pieces can come first he thought this was phase 1A. Mr. Kurz stated he would like to approve the wall but wanted to know what assurances can be provided. Mr. Hall stated that a rock -fall analysis was performed, and determined they needed a berm. Mr. Hall discussed the budgeting process and the role it plays. He stated hiring a wildlife biologist looking at just this juncture did not seem the right process. Mr. Hall stated that the two herds operate differently and have different characteristics. He stated that they could do a very specific site analysis. Commissioner Stockmar called for the public comment Public Comment Grace Poganski, Vail resident, stated that we don't know what the sheep do on the site. She stated she can't believe we're going to move forward on something without an environmental report. Pam Stenmark, Vail resident spoke to a need for an environmental report. We have been discussion environmental impacts since the start of the Booth Heights application. You can't make piecemeal decisions without understanding the big picture. We know sheep go back there. Commissioner Gillette stated he is in favor of an Environmental Impact Report before the conditional use permit or approving the retaining wall. Mr. Hall requested to continue this application to September 23, 2019. Karen Perez moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 30 min. 9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn D rive/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0039) 30 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker asked if there is anything that the PEC needs to know about the conditional use permit; staff would like to know now to prepare for the next meeting. The commissioners had no additional comments aside from the Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Perez requested to see what the wall would like without a variance, versus with the variance, so they can weigh all the criteria and balance the environmental impacts, and help explain why the variance is or is not required. There was a discussion of the impact of stepping the wall up the hill and its impact to additional site disturbance. Ms. Perez asked about the maximum height of the wall Mr. Hall indicated that 22 feet is the maximum wall height. Ms. Hopkins asked why solar panels could not be placed on roofs of buildings. Mr. Hall indicated that they would need to rebuild the roofs due to structural issues. Proposed location would also be more solar efficient. Mr. Hall said they would provide a visual aid to the stepping of the fence and its impact. Public Comment — None Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) 15 min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark requested that the item be continued to the next meeting unless the board felt ready to make a motion based on the staff provided materials. The board declined and agreed with the continuation request. Planner Clark indicated that Planner Gates would be taking over this item for the following meeting, September 9th. Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 9, 2019. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 45 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker introduced Paul Cada from the W ildland Division of the Fire Department as the applicant for the Town. This department has been working on developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The original idea was to adopt the W ildland Urban Interface (W UI) code in its entirety. This code had a lot of repetition. After some review it was determined that amending existing regulations would be a better option. These amendments were reviewed 7 times by the Board of Appeals and twice in front of the Design Review Board. These amendments make changes to landscaping requirements for new construction and additions over 500 square feet. It adds restrictions to landscaping materials, building materials, and defensible space. Mr. Gillette stated that the amendments reference the fire resistant landscaping guidelines from the fire department which was not in the packet He asked staff to get all the materials together and bring this item back. I read the guidelines, but if the other commissioners have not, they need to and need to look at their own homes to see what these amendments would do because they are extreme. Mr. Neubecker stated that the fire resistant landscaping guidelines have already been reviewed and adopted by this board, and have been in effect for several years. Mr. Gillette responded that those needed to be included in the packet. Mr. Neubecker went on to introduce Paul Cada Mr. Cada stated that the commission had approved those guidelines in 2016. The proposed amendments actually reduce these guidelines. From what we've learned from reviewing landscaping plans over the years, we wanted to provide some subtle but important changes to the guidelines. The findings of both the Board of Appeals and the DRB were that these material changes are in line with what is existing in the town. Mr. Kjesbo, also a member of the Board of Appeals, concurred with this statement. Ms. Hopkins asked if the Fire Department would be distributing cards on the changes to the code and how they might affect specific properties in the future. Thought it was a great idea. Mr. Gillette mentioned that he saw this notice but that some of the other commissioners might have a larger property than him which would mean these changes affect them less. When I look at my lot and the trees that I would have to take down, it would be devastating. I totally disagree with the last mile rule making, where the last guy gets stuck with the rules. These rules won't make anything safer. Ms. Hopkins reiterated that these amendments wouldn't be retroactive. Mr. Gillette responded by disagreeing with this approach and that it ultimately wouldn't make the town safer. Mr. Cada stated that the department strongly disagreed with that sentiment. This was well researched. Mr. Gillette stated that this is only talking about new construction. We only do five new homes each year. Mr. Kjesbo said that most properties already comply Mr. Neubecker stated that this is how most codes operate. Buildings get safer and safer each year due to codes. Mr. Gillette brought up the idea of updating building codes. He stated that he and his children now live in a home that is out of compliance with the current building code. These kinds of regulations add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home. Mr. Cada stated that these amendments should not increase costs. Removing landscaping is more likely to reduce costs in the long run. The long term studies on implementing these codes indicate that they are cost neutral, or cost less. Ms. Hopkins: Let's look at Cordillera as an example where everyone wanted wood roofs and materials. Eventually as the Earth heated, the fire department stated that they couldn't protect this area or these people, but with code changes and the lifetime of wood materials, these properties eventually came into compliance. Mr. Gillette: Look at the Grand Traverse as an example where there would be no trees between houses after this. There would be no trees in his subdivision, not one single tree. Hopkins disagreed saying that area does have lot with more than 25 feet. Mr. Cada: Look at Chamonix, there are trees on that property. Certainly less landscaping than traditional. Mr. Kjesbo disagreed with this statement. Mr. Cada admitted that the trees would be thinned but not eliminated altogether. Mr. Gillette again urged the commission to look at the new rules and to imagine what it would do to landscaping in the town. You have done amazing job on creating defensible space around the town, continue to do that. If we adopt this, people will be furious. Ms. Perez: We had the fire department at my condo complex, and they tagged the trees for removal. We will have no trees left at Brooktree. It will just be called "Brook". Mr. Gillette said this was too much, but that everyone should look at what the neighborhoods will look like. Ms. Perez felt uncomfortable pushing these regulations through without everyone having a comprehensive understanding of the changes. Mr. Kjesbo mentioned that he is on the Appeals Board and had 7 or 8 meetings with the fire department. He agreed with the materials changes but strongly disagreed with the landscaping ones. They have made these changes at Chamonix and it still looks very stark. That was one area where he disagreed with Mr. Cada. Mentioned that he did take much of the Fire Department's advice at his own house, cleaning up evergreens and dead branches. Felt there is more of a balancing act. Mr. Cada explained that you don't see the results of landscaping until years down the line. Over planting early on results in over -dense landscaping in ten years. At that point, the public doesn't want to remove landscaping as they grow. One of the challenges is how to mandate maintenance. We advise people to "give it time" to grow. There is a desire to have landscaping screening immediately, but mature trees provide more screening as time goes on. Fire department decided to err on the side of later screening. Mr. Gillette stated that there would be no trees to approve at all. Mr. Stockmar stated again that they need to see the guidelines. Mr. Perez suggested that the applicant request continuing this item to the next meeting and resubmit with the full regulations to review. Mr. Lockman asked if the fire department had been working with the County. Mr. Cada stated that this effectively brings Vail up to county standards, but that they weren't in lock -step because the proposed regulations are tailored for Vail. There are much different landscapes in other parts of the county. Specifically, building material restrictions are very similar, but landscaping restrictions are proposed to be more lax in Vail than the County. Mr. Gillette asked if the county had revised their regulations recently Mr. Cada said no. Mr. Gillette stated that he worked on a home in unincorporated Eagle County, Highland Meadows that had no or near no mitigation requirements. He asked if and why the entire Town would be placed under high risk mitigation requirements. Mr. Cada stated there is no high or low risk in Vail. All parts of Vail are in the same rating. Mr. Gillette responded by saying that this proposes more relaxed restrictions for high risk areas, but stricter ones in lower risk areas of Vail. Mr. Neubecker asked if the Commission had any comments on the proposed regulations and language. Mr. Stockmar stated that they needed to see it alongside the landscaping guidelines. Mr. Kjesbo mentioned that there is a lot on wood siding. Mr. Cada stated that what is defined as ignition resistant materials is found in the building code. Mr. Gillette wanted to see that section of the building code as well. Mr. Neubecker stated that current code mentions what is ignition resistant. A determination was made that the DRB should not decide what is non- combustible, that should be determined by the building code and building official. Do you want that definition included from the building code? Mr. Gillette said that was good and asked that the applicant take it further by providing examples. Mr. Cada said he would happy to provide the full presentation that was provided for the Board of Appeals. Mr. Stockmar invited a motion to continue to September 9, 2019 Ludwig Kurz moved to continue to September 9, 2019. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031) This application has been withdrawn by staff. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. August 12, 2019 PEC Results Chairman Stockmar stated that the meeting minutes for August 12th had several errors and made a motion to continue so that they could be corrected. Commissioner Gillette stated that he noticed that the Booth Heights items were listed as Tabled in the minutes, and should have been listed as Continued. Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 9, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to Motion. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it (7-0). 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000473171-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and account number is: 1023233 E.viYour hold,. publicahea�ing in aro"rd....Twiin s ct n114 3-6, Vail Town Coda on September 8, 2019 at 1.600 pm in the Townef Vail Municipa1. uiltlire. PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY A request for the review of a variance Section n p or�a�s'of Valli— ac-aaenes, uth the ion",11 1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for dev,lor STATE OF COLORADO in the Housing Zoning District ora aleph. of forty percent (40%) or greater, Iecan at 2420 COUNTY OF EAGLE Chamonix Lane/ihe western porton of Parcels B and the north., portion of Parcel A, formerly a eaubdiviaion of Tract H, Vail Das Schon, Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E, Chamonix Vail Community Subdivi- on),and seeing forth details in regard thereto. I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of (PEC 19-0038) Applicant: Town of Vail, George Rather Planner'. Jonathan Spence the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Arogue. far review of a Minor Srbaviainq whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, pursuant to Sectsne 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vai Town coda to ate Chamonix Van Communiy State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; e `lel E, a bdivcosubdn oofnTracof t D,,Vails l Das Schorr rel that said newspaper has been published continuously and Filing No� 15 antl seting forth details In regard there to. (PEcs-9032) Applicant: Town of Vail, George Rather uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Planner Jonathan Spence more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the A request for a recommendation to the Vail T— Council,pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendmem, first publication of the annexed legal notice or w Vail Ton Coda for an update to the Ven Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Categcry and setting forth de - advertisement and that said newspaper has published the plplinr gadTown'oi PE-2,19-0gorge Rather requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Planner Jonathan Sp,nc, A request for the review of an Amended Develop- ment Plan, pursuant to Section 12 -BI -11, Develop- ment Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for amend- The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, 9 g enis to the Chamonix Vail Community D,velop- m t Plan, Parcel B and a northern punier of Pa, cel A, formerly a resubdivision of Treat D, Vail Das forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Sgartlt ellretoN(PEC19-0035)g forth details in chouonly Rule provision. Applicant: Town of Vail, George Rather Planner'. Jonathan Spence A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Tow" Code , to allow for the construction o d"'anim"thHousing 242chmomk published in the regular and entire issue of every number located at 0al'` Lane, Parcel B and a nortem portion of Parcel A, of said daily newspaper for the of 1 insertion; and formerly a resubdivisiact on of TrD, Vail Use Schorr Filing No.land setting fort, delailsinregard! thereto period that the firstublication in the issue (PEC19-0034) Applicant: Town of Vail, George Rather P of said notice was of Planner. Jonathan Spence said newspaper dated 8/23/2019 and that the last A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town publication of said notice was dated 8/23/2019 in the issue Council forzone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Towi Cotla to allow for the rezoning of a portion of 2399 of said newspaper. rs��di sio�'aoffeTract o Vail s Schon, Filing from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, H) District and seeing forth details in reg,M tereto. PEC19-0033) 8/26/2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, George Rather Planner Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the propos- ) Is are available for Vaili inspection during office hours at the Town Vail Community Development l Department, en South Frontage Road. The public is muted to .tend she visits. Please call 970-479- 2139orvisitwww.vailgoat.. elan no for '�a`y®(/�,A11v'ygtl additional information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Mark Wurzer, Publisher Published on August 23rd, 2019 in the Vail Dan, 0000473171 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 8/26/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF WTM Pug�!d. VATS Ci CUl04A€70 NOSAftY til Rgi1�zoo u`/vCfi3.¢CGpt6;XplRIGAUGilS7et,20K' Ad #: 0000480221-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the 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 forjurisdictions 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 9/6/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/6/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 9/10/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 9/10/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LYNPd EDINA rrnegi!dD— zoo Ci-`11 NOTARY til 2AlRI:Gilg9i9A N`/vCfi3.¢CGpM;XPAUGil57et,20K' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 8, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Roatl- Vail, Colorado, 61657 Call to Order 1.1. Attendance Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant W Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for an update to the Vail Land Use Plan, specifically the Chamonix Master Plan and the Chamonix Land Use Category and setting form details in regard thereto.(PEC19-OlMO) 90 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Rather Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.2. Arequest for the review of a vanance from Section 12-21-10 Development Restnahm, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for development in the Housing Zoning District on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater, located at 2420 Chamonix Dme/the western portion of Parcels B and the northern portion of Parcel A, formerly, re,,Mivi,i,n of Tract D, Vail Das School Filing No. 1 (Future Lot E. Chamonix Vail Community Subdivision), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0(36) 10 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuantto Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, t0 allow forthe rezoning Of a portion Of 2399 North Frontage Road West, Parcel A, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 from the General Use (GU) District to the Housing (H) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0033) 10 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Rather Planner: Jon than Spence 2.4. Arequest for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor SubdNiam , Vail Town Code, to create Chamonix Vail Community Parcel E, a esubdivision of Parcels A and B, formerly a resubdivision of Treat D, Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0032) min The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Jon th 2.5. Alrequest for the neve SOfean Amended Development Plan, pursuant to Sectio, The applicant has requested this item be tabled to September 23, 2019. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.6. Arequest for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Se i 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Veil Town Cotle, t0 allow for the cor atmctum Of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located M located at 2310 and 2420 Chamonix Lane, Parcel B and a northern portion of Parcel A, formerly esubdivisim, of Tract D, Vail Das Schon. Filing No. 1antl seting forth details n regard thereto. (PEC19-0034) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to Septem-23,2019. Applicant: Town o1 Vail, represented by George Father Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.7. A request for a racommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail TownCode, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, W update definitions, t, remove random definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details in re and ereto. (PEC19-0017) 15 min. Appllcant: Townthof Vail Plenn¢r: Erik Gates 2.8. A request fore recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant M Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail TownCode, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development St,ndards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Intertace to reduce the risk Of wildwe, and setting form details n regard thereto. (PEG18-0035) 45 min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. August 12, 2919 PEC Meeting R¢suite 3.2. August 26, 2019 PEC Meeting Results 4. Adjournment The applicationsantl information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular of- fice hours at the Town of Vail Cam mal Development Department, 75 SoFrontage Road. The public is ted 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 W chang, and cannot be relied upan to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission wille con- sider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language inter- pretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Val Daily September 6, 2019. 0000480221