HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-28 PEC pt2ii7y
to
t Y
--•,
i _.
_ . � is
..y.
e•
a ._
.�
a z
G
m
ot
$:,
sv
ti
a z
G
U
F
w
. _
LL
w
0
LL
r
CNa
d
z
�
Y
w
J v
■
O
t�A
4—J
•
W
0
ro
v
0
J
O
_O
O
U
W
A `
4J
4 -JE
O
U
E
±'
O
U
4—J
C6
�
O
N
O
�
�
_
X
O
�
�
N
LA
Ln
Ln
O
t�A
4—J
•
W
0
ro
v
0
J
red
m
!imi
r
i
z t.-
ti
7 alt - y
m
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE:
ITEM/TOPIC: February 14, 2022 PEC Results
ATTACHM ENTS:
File Name Description
oec results 021422.odf February 14, 2022 PEC Results
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION
February 14, 2022, 1:00 PM
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN tXLOeRs9QKieoSkwg888Jw
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2. Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Jenn
Bruno, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt
Absent: None
Executive Session
2.1. C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town 15 min.
Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding
proposed code amendments.
3. Main Agenda
3.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 60 min.
Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a
new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback
Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pete Wadden
Planner: Greg Roy
Peter Wadden, the Watershed Education Coordinator begins presentation.
He reviews the changes made to the proposal since January 24th
He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He mentions that a healthy
creek depends on healthy riparian habitat. He talks about the community
input process. He talks about the number of non -conforming properties in
town under various scenarios. Under the 25 -foot setback, there would be an
increase of about 5% of non -conforming properties
Perez asks if he is counting structures or number of units?
Wadden says structures.
Perez confirms the number of units could be higher than the number of
structures.
Wadden says the current numbers are comparing existing non -conforming
structures against conditions under the proposed language.
Perez wants to be clear that we're talking structures not units.
Phillips asks about properties on Mill Creek, Booth Creek and Buffehr
Creek.
Wadden says this includes Gore Creek and its tributaries
Wadden did not find anything that insurance rates would be impacted by
non -conformity for multi -family and commercial properties. Insurance
agents don't ask if a property is non -conforming when setting the rate for a
policy.
Wadden talks about Town Code 12-18-9, Restoration. Commissioners had
expressed concern about the one-year period here. Staff did not feel it was
appropriate to address this code language as part of this proposal.
Gillette and Perez say this needs to change before code goes into effect.
Spence says that can be part of the Planning and Environmental
Commission's (PEC) recommendation to Town Council.
Pratt asks if this period can be extended.
Spence says that is correct, it hasn't been a regulatory concern in his time
at the town.
Perez says it could be an issue with a multi -family building, the one-year
period will be deficient for that process.
Spence says that can be included in any recommendations to Town
Council.
Bruno recommends extending the time period to 15 -months in the
recommendation.
Wadden says the effective date of the ordinance can also be included in the
recommendation.
Gillette thought it would be part of the ordinance.
Pratt says this applies to all fire damage; the town has been accommodating
with this process and it doesn't need to be changed for the ordinance today.
Phillips feels this issue is separate from the ordinance we're considering
today.
Spence says the key word is commenced in the language.
Kjesbo clarifies that the Town will work with the owners in these cases.
Phillips asks if cleaning up is part of that commencement.
Perez asks where that is defined.
Spence says it is a working policy
Wadden says they would prefer that conversation is a separate discussion
and included outside the language of this ordinance.
Wadden and staff see no reason not to delay the effective date of the
ordinance. On the positive side it would give property owners additional time
to prepare for this ordinance. On the negative side, it would likely create
additional non -conforming properties near waterways before the new
regulations go into effect.
Perez asks if the presentation today was included in the packet?
Wadden says it was not.
Spence says delayed implementation could be included in the
recommendation that the PEC forwards. It is often that the formal ordinance
isn't completed until prior to Council. He says you're reviewing the changes
to the code not the ordinance itself.
Wadden clarifies that the Eagle County setback is 75 feet from the bank and
the Environmental Protection Agency recommended setback is 100 ft from
the bank.
He reviews the methodology for the Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHW M)
and the Two Year Floodline (TYFL). He talks about the benefits and
drawbacks of each method. The data the town is proposing to use was put
together by River Restoration. The benefit of the TYFL is that it is an
objective line from which to regulate.
Gillette asks about a creekside project and says a survey will include both of
those numbers. When it comes down to it, you'll always have a survey,
whichever one number benefits them is the one they'll use. He thinks we've
spent too much time on this.
Pratt thought that the Army Corps method only applies if you want to appeal
the TYFL.
Wadden says that is correct
Gillette says we almost get a worse product by including this language in the
ordinance because applicants will take the better deal.
Wadden says ease of enforcement and recognition is the greatest benefit of
the objective line.
Gillette says the modeling was necessary to craft the ordinance but maybe
not to include in the ordinance.
Phillips asks how you establish a usable baseline without using one of these
methods.
Wadden says that is why staff is recommending this approach, it creates a
baseline for the regulation.
Phillips says in the last meeting there was a big back and forth about which
method to go with. He appreciates that staff is recommending one with an
appeals process. At some point we have to back up our setback baseline.
Wadden says staff's opinions is that we should have a baseline to regulate
from, in this case the TYFL. He says the OHW M methodology would have
been more expensive to apply to the whole town.
Phillips clarifies that we backed off the 1.5 -year floodline. None of the
experts actually said that the 2 year floodline benefitted the river more than
the 1.5 year floodline.
Wadden talks about the appeals process. What was hanged from last time is
that the property owner would not need their survey verified by the Army
Corps. Staff will review these submissions.
Gillette asks about the general variance process. He talks about a scenario
of a property accessed by a bridge across a creek, which is not allowed in
the ordinance.
Spence says that could be addressed in a variance process.
Wadden talks about the submittal requirements for an appeal.
Gillette asks about this specific language in the ordinance right now.
Wadden says this was not currently included but will be included at an
administrative level.
Perez asks for clarification.
Wadden says the decision on submittal requirements would be decided at
administrative level but the PEC not staff would have the final review.
Perez says she is uncomfortable that there are not currently criteria for the
PEC review. What are their review criteria?
Gillette brings up an example. If a surveyor says this is the line, who are we
to say no. He thinks it should be a staff review that could be appealed to the
PEC.
Perez says this ordinance is incomplete without that review criteria.
Spence says it would be similar to other processes, staff accepts documents
from a qualified professional with a stamp. However, it does have to go to a
governing body.
Perez reiterates she would like the review criteria included.
Spence says the process is more of a correction than an appeal.
Perez says legally it has to be appealed.
Spence says it is similar to the other appeals process.
Wadden says that the method would have to follow the Army Corps
methodology.
Gillette asks what is a shapefile?
Wadden says it is a GIS file that shows location of the lines in question
Spence says it allows staff to update the map layer.
Gillette asks if the GIS map will be updated based on each property that
comes back with data.
Wadden confirms. He reiterates why staff is recommending a 25 foot
setback. He talks about setbacks in neighboring communities.
Bruno asks when the current setback was implemented in Eagle County.
Wadden says 2006. Town studies show the 25 foot setback best
approximates existing setbacks without reducing them. He addresses the 1.5
vs 2 -year flood elevation. The 2 year floodline is a slightly more conservative
near average baseline. In places where the bank is steepest, the difference
between the two is very small. I n places where the bank is wider, it
increases.
Wadden asks why change setbacks from 1976? The Gore Creek Strategic
Plan instructs staff to do so. Existing setbacks have been ineffective in
protecting Gore Creek. Centerline setbacks are also inequitable. Vail has
changed a lot in 50 years, that can be addressed through changing
regulations.
Gillette talks about letter from Berkshire College. Why didn't we adopt those
items?
Wadden says there is an item to allow for control of noxious weeds
Gillette references other items in letter.
Wadden says the best way to address invasive species was allowing
property owners to remove those species listed as noxious weeds.
Gillette asks about the uses of walkways, pools, patios.
Perez references the current language in the code.
Wadden says they tried to match it to the existing language regarding what
is allowed in setbacks.
Spence clarifies the existing language in Town Code 14-10-4.
Gillette asks if the ordinance would be better off referencing Town Code 14-
10-4.
Spence says there was community concern about that.
Gillette says we might not want driveways and parking in this setback.
Kjesbo likes the idea of relating the ordinance language to Town Code 14-
10-4.
Wadden says the intention was to use the same language as is currently in
the code. The change would be how the setback is measured, not what is
allowed in the setback.
Spence says we don't want to add new language that is only applicable to
this setback,k that raises questions about other setbacks.
Gillette is concerned that the current language in the ordinance is confusing.
Says we should either reference 14-10-4 or spell it all out.
Spence suggests we should reference 14-10-4.
Perez says the way it is written it seems to limit only those specific items
described. Let's relate it to 14-10-4.
Spence says that was staff's original approach, they support that approach.
Perez references. Section C -1-d Does the word "public" modify the other
things enumerated, or does it apply to private things as well.
Wadden says private bridges would be addressed through the variance
process.
Spence says the intent is only public, staff can address the language there.
Perez references language "buildings lawfully existing subject to chapter
18."
Wadden says that section addresses non -conforming properties
Kjesbo references letters that asked what you can do with existing non-
conforming structures.
Spence says you can maintain what is existing as it is.
Pratt thinks staff did a good job explaining why they want 25 foot setbacks
on tributaries. Since the 25 foot number increases the number of non-
conforming structures is there a rationale to allow an option of a 20 foot
setback, but a 15 foot riparian zone.
Gillette says the Fire Department wanted a 15 -foot buffer.
Wadden says the proposed setback would create uniformity throughout the
town. What Pratt is proposing could create challenges with fire protection.
Regarding tributaries it is valuable to create uniformity across town.
Pratt says the filtration occurs in the riparian zone.
Kjesbo asks if the town monitors the stream where it enters and exits the
town. How does the water quality change?
Wadden says the Town monitors nine sites for insects. At the bottom of the
pass the stream has healthy bug populations, by the time you get to Bighorn
Park it has failed the standards every year but one since 2009.
Pratt asks if somebody is talking about changing the state rules on
pesticides.
Wadden says it is in discussions. Currently local jurisdictions cannot pass
more stringent regulations than what the state has passed.
Gillette asks about section C-1. Was that better defined elsewhere?
Spence says in the current adopted code there is no allowed path, but it has
seemed like a good idea.
Wadden talks about the Town approach to informal pathways in the past.
Gillette asks about restoration of the first 10 feet.
Wadden says language addressing restoration is included
Kurz asks for public input.
Wayne Forman represents 1 Willow Bridge and the HOA. He references
their letter from February 3rd. He asks about an artificial drainage on their
property and would like to see that explicitly excluded. Second, regarding
one year reconstruction they would like to see that time period extended with
this ordinance. He references Paragraph D-3 says the current language is
confusing as to a successful appeal and should be clarified; get rid of clear
and convincing evidence language.
Dan Johnson represents the Grand Hyatt Vail. He says last time there was a
consensus to have the ordinance take effect Jan. 1, 2023. He was
surprised not to hear that today and would ask for consideration of that
delayed ordinance.
Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He agrees with Forman
regarding the section update. You need some criteria for review or change
when you can have an appeal. You can have an either or standard where
you measure from either line, whichever is less restrictive. He understands
from staff that the intent is to measure the streambank with the line, so why
not use OHW M. The setback today is a building setback, he talks about
what is allowed in a setback. He agrees that that section C -a should be
made very clear as there are issues with the existing code. Under B add
sidewalks. He talks about parking within setbacks.
He likes Pratt's idea of allowing the exchange of setbacks and no -mow zone
on tributaries. It's not clear that you can do restoration in the no -mow zone,
that should be made clear. Last meeting we heard that if an application
comes in prior to the effective day of the ordinance it would be processed
with the current rules.
Spence confirms.
Mauriello suggests putting the effective date in the ordinance. He says
things can get lost in the process, the proposal should be complete now. He
references instances where the 2 year floodline in the town data is off.
Gillette asks if it matters.
Mauriello says the model is not accurate in some instances. If we're flexible
why are we concerned about changing the time outlined in the code for the
restoration process. He references the Matterhorn Inn.
Spence says staff will take any recommendation forwarded by this
committee.
Mauriello suggests you should include a complete copy of your comments in
the recommendation to Council. It has been identified that the FEMA
mapping is off vertically by 4' on Middle Creek. Should there be a provision
that deals with errors in the mapping of the TYFL?
Gillette says those errors can be addressed through the appeals process.
Spence says over time the layers will get better and better.
DM says look at the setbacks on pg. 28, 29, and 30 of the packet. He
supports measuring from the streambank but is concerned about the errors
in the mapping.
Gillette says every lawyer they've heard from has had a problem with the
language regarding the appeal. He likes the idea of either-or language.
Jon Rediker says their needs to be an implementation date. He doesn't see
a benefit to delaying, a delay would allow more non -conforming structures to
be built.
Mauriello references the setback lines shown on pg. 28 of the packet. He
shows the examples on pg. 29 and 30 as well. This reinforces the idea that
you also need the OHW M included in the ordinance.
Pratt says where you pointed is where there's a beaver dam, that could
affect the high water mark.
Bill Hoblitzell says the maps are correctly delineated.
Gillette asks about the criteria for the appeal process. He likes the idea of
either-or language.
Bruno agrees. If you can appeal with the OHW M, we're already saying it's
an acceptable method. Property owners can choose one of the methods.
Gillette says it could be more of a submittal requirement than appeal
process.
Wadden asks for commission support.
Gillette, Kurz, and Bruno support allowing the property owner to choose the
method.
The commission supports an effective date of January 1, 2023.
Kjesbo says they want all the language in there when it is presented to
Council.
Perez talks about the enumerations in C -2-a and that it should references
section 14.
Gillette agrees. He asks about best management practices as mentioned in
the ordinance.
Wadden says that should be left somewhat broad as the standards of the
industry change.
Spence suggest the language could say "restoration specific with best
management practices."
Kristen Bertuglia is the Environmental Sustainability Director at the Town of
Vail. She addresses the "either or" provision. That would take out the
objectivity that staff is trying to establish. If we want to guarantee a win for
the creek, the only way to do that is to start with this baseline. If you let the
applicant decide, she's not certain we'll end up with additional riparian area,
it's something to consider.
Bruno says when you allow an appeal process you're giving that opportunity
anyway.
Bertuglia agrees but says that the standard is a little bit higher
Bruno asks for some clear criteria on an appeal process.
Bertuglia says it's important that the Army Corps process is followed
Gillette asks for clarification.
Spence says if the board directs staff to review, there would be no appeal
process to the PEC.
Gillette says staff can verify applicants used the proper procedures.
Phillips says the less restrictive measure is a treacherous road to go down..
Why not adopt the more restrictive of the two, it also eliminates the
gamesmanship between the two methods. He talks about the appeals
process. From him there wasn't a consensus to go to the lesser standard.
We've kicked this can down the road, the less restrictive route doesn't
necessarily set a great baseline to repair the health of the creek.
Gillette says the modeling was trying to identify the high water mark, the
mark you see when you go out to field survey.
Perez doesn't like eliminating going back to the PEC. The whole idea was to
have a public process that allows property owners to make their case. It's a
balancing act.
Pratt says whichever line is better is the wrong way to present it. We need
some basic criteria which we can base the regulation on.
Spence says it would be incorrect to replace surveyors with the commission.
Perez says criteria can be established with a scientific, objective approach.
We should establish the criteria to give property owners the opportunity for
the appeals process.
Gillette says the appeals process is referring to the line used for the setback.
Perez says the appeals process is to look at how the ordinance might be
burdensome.
Gillette says that is addressed by the variance language laid out elsewhere.
Spence says this is purely numbers.
Perez says we should look at some of the memos that have been received.
She asks about the point of the appeals process as presented.
Wadden says the point is to allow an applicant to appeal the lines and use
the OHW M where the TYFL may be in the wrong area. It only references
those considerations.
Perez says there is a legal side to this of why there is an appeals process.
Gillette says the memo does not make sense.
Spence says the word correction could be substituted for an appeal. An
appeal could have the connotation of needing deliberation, while this is more
of a correction to the data.
Phillips agrees it's a correction or clarification of the high-water mark. That
is separate from the variance process
Pratt agrees.
Wadden confirms the intent of the appeals process. Specific criteria would
be based upon the Army Corps methodology.
Spence says we don't necessarily need criteria for a correction.
Gillette says you have to use the Army Corps method, we don't need to
enumerate everything. That is a surveyor's job.
Spence says there will be specific language for restoration processes
following best management processes.
Gillette asks about the time period for restoration.
Wadden says staff doesn't believe it should be included in the streambank
ordinance because of its impact in other areas.
Spence says changing the time period can be included in a
recommendation to Town Council.
The commission is in favor of the 25 foot setback over the 20 foot setback.
The commission is in favor of an effective date of January 1, 2023.
Perez clarifies criteria is needed for the correction process not an appeal
process. She supports the effective dates, recommending to change the
restoration time period, and referencing 14-10-4 in C-2.
Bruno says its not an appeal process so much as a correction.
Perez asks for clarity from Town Attorney if this correction process meets
legal requirements.
Spence says he will work with the Town Attorney on this.
Brian Gillette moved to continue to February 28, 2022. Henry Pratt
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
3.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 30 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. (PEC22-0002)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada
Planner: Greg Roy
Paul Cada is the W ildland Program Manager. Cada gives a presentation on
proposed changes to W UI code amendments in Ch. 12 and 14, as well as a
separate code proposal for chapter 5.
Gillette asks a clarification about the existing exemption for reskins.
Gillette is concerned about removing the exemption for additions under 500
square feet.
Cada says as written only the part that's added has to comply.
Gillette says from a design standpoint it might not match.
Cada says since 2019 we have not encountered a situation where an
addition hasn't met design standards because of that.
Gillette gives an example about cedar shakes.
Cada says the materials adoption in 2019 doesn't allow siding with openings.
Spence says the exemption doesn't include prohibited materials.
Gillette asks if prior to this was there anything saying you couldn't use cedar
shake. Why would you have something that didn't match the rest of the
house?
Cada clarifies the language from 2019.
Gillette says the exemption for tiny additions was there because would burn
anyway so why not have it be the same material.
Spence says it hasn't come up in the last two years.
Perez says two years might not be enough to say.
Gillette agrees with the reskin proposal but doesn't want to see the exemption
changed for additions under 500 square feet.
Cada says compliance siding cannot have things like shake. Will a 250
square foot addition make a difference? Often it includes other things. What
we;'re trying to do is limit the number of exceptions. The intent as council
agreed is how to implement these codes quicker.
Spence says if the commission would like to forward a recommendation that
this exception is maintained they can do that.
Phillips asks for a straw poll.
The commission supports maintaining the exemption for additions under 500
square feet.
The commission is in favor of the reskin proposal.
The commission is in favor of mansard roof proposal.
Gillette talks about limits of disturbance, and how often you are required to
remove all the trees on site.
Cada says that is not true.
Gillette asks about a site with 15 foot property lines
Cada references a landscape plan from 272 W Meadow. The Fire
Department will work together with projects to identify the best fit. Ignition
resistant was non -prescriptive to allow flexibility.
Gillette asks if you can have trees withing 15 feet of a house.
Cada says on existing structures, existing trees can remain.
Spence says there is not a section of the code that says you can't. It's
based on the landscape guidelines.
Philips says this gives the Fire Department the opportunity to work with
homeowners and find the best solution.
Spence says staff had the same concerns as Gillette during the initial
proposal in 2019 which proved unfounded.
Cada talks about the review process with ignition resistant landscape
guidelines.
No one opposes the landscaping guidelines.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve, with amendment to keep exemption in 12-
11-3 relating to addition under 500 square feet. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 2 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend
the regulations on landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath decks
should be considered and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC22-
0001)
The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 14, 2022 PEC
Meeting.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Greg Roy
Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to March 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
3.4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major 2 min.
amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons,
pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to
allow for reconfiguration of e)asting accommodation units, fractional fee units
and dwelling units, and to amend the Employee Housing Plan to locate a
portion of the existing onsite employee housing offsite, located at 1 Vail
Road/Lots A -C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC21-0059)
This item will be renoticed for a later date.
Applicant: Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau
Planner: Jonathan Spence
4. Approval of Minutes
4.1. January 24, 2022 PEC Results
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
5. Adjournment
Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette 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
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and
Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will
hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-
3-6, Vail Town Code, on February 14 2022 at 1:06
pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Bui0ing.
Register in advance for this "nar:
httpsJlus02web. zoom.uslwebinarlregisterANN_
tXL0e Rs9QKieoSkwg88&IW
After registering, you will receive a confirmation
email containing information about joining the
webinar.
A request for a final recommendation to the Vail
Town Council on a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 36, Four Seasons,
pursuant to Section 12-9A-10 Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for
reconfiguration of existingq accommodation units,
fractional fee units and aelling units, and to amend
the Employee Housing Pian to locate a portion of
the existing onsite em toCylaee housin oftssiite, located
setting f � details inregard Village
t l veto -{PE -000059)
45 min.
Applicant: Four Seasons Resort, represented by
Andrew Sellnau
Planner: Jonathan Spence
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council, pursuant to Section 127 Amendrnent,
Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards,
Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on
landscaping to clarify how landscaping beneath
decks should be considered and setting forth details
in regard thereto. [PEC22-0001 ] 45 min.
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner: Greg Roy
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council, pursuant to Section 127, Amendment,
Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Tithe 12, 7 -ori Ae ulations and
Title 14, Development Standares ail Town Code,
to amend the regulations on builiing design and
landscaping in regulations
Urban Interface to
reduce the risk of wildfire and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC22-0002) 45 mm.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada
Planner: Greg Roy
The applications and information about the
proposals are available for public inspection
during office hours at the Town of Varl Community
Development department, 75 South Frontage Road.
The pc s imrited to attend site visits. Please call
97Dd79 2138 or visit www.vailgov.corNplanning for
additional information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request
wish 24 -Four notification. dial 711.
Published January 28, 2022 in the Vail Dail .
PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FRI�AY,
JANUARY 28, 2622.
PEC Notice February 14, 2022 - Page 2 of 2
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: February28, 2022
ITEM/TOPIC: Aquatic Entomologist, Dave Rees, will provide an update on macro invertebrate populations in Gore Creek as surveyed
in September 2020.
ATTACHM ENTS:
File Name Description
Biomonitoring 2020 Data Presentation. pdf Biomonitoring 2020 Data Presentation
(7
Z
O
FM
z
O
2O
Fn
0
N
O
N
J
N
LU
W
O
CD
Y
V
Q
J
m
W
W
w
(M)
W
OC
O
CD
W
W
w
(.)
w
W
o�
W
J
a
LU
•W
W
Q
N
N
O
N
r -I
C-
U
L
cfC
G
000-A%k
V)
L-
0
O
>
c
—
O
V
•
> >
a--+
i
CL
_0
a--+
bAo
M
.0
0-
V
Ul
OL-
0
�
O
E
-Ln
N
Ul
>'
O
O
tw
ca0
C:
C
._
Q
�
cn
E+.-0
E
m
O
Ln
O
V
oC
CL
E
CD
cry
f
11,
WE
.V
O
N
OQL
U
• -
(6
L
T
O
�,•�
II
L
U
70
N
o)
N
N
(670—
L
O
o0U
O
U
U
a)
0)
C0
G
Q
CL
O
O
U
N
Q
D
L-
70
L-
L -
a)
U
L-
a) a)
L-
a) a)
IZV
i
L
O
a--+
U
N
O
U
a)
70
a)
U)
`/
m
L
X
a)
9
--+
QL
—
ON
Q
N
Q
N
C�
E
O
>
LLJ
a)Q
.v
O
n
W
`-'
ca
v)
x
m
:
x
a)
�
�
O
>
a)
>
�
Lim-
L.�
U4-0
.0
�
)
• —
o
�
4)
U
—
N
L
CC)
O
U')
ti
00
O
O
C'7
m
E
E
OO
V
-C
V
-0
V
•—
C:
a--+
Ca
_0
Mcr
C:
C:
>�
ca
.0
_Ul
i
>ca
X
OV
m
X
.0
+5
a)
_0
>
},
—
V
V
0
+�-+
Ul
•—
0
•-
O
+,
0
ca
O
E
ca
w
3:
+-Ov
>
Ul
%%Moo
0—
..
w
=
�
m
LU
=
m
m
x
1711
x
Ln
>
x
c�
m
LO
N
},
70
x
N
Ej
N
N
U')Cn
m
a)
a
N
_
70
N
Q
(6
cn
N
_0
co
_0p
O
m
N
m
EL
U)
x
—
O
N
X
U
v
O
O
U
;
U)
w
Z
U
Ir -
.n%
QL
L
LU
0-
0-
cn
0-
U
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
x
1711
>
c�
N
},
70
x
N
Ej
N
N
U')Cn
to
70
N
0O
�_
N
7
O
O
EL
U)
x
D
Z
U
;
o
Q
QL
C)
LU
0-
0-
cn
0-
U
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
CD
U
Cc
m
f
11,
0
1
0
rn
0
N
■
1
00
1
o
;
1
8
1
a ~
1
CQ
� co-
a
1
a UL d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
II 1
-.
1
"I
1
N N C
N
1
1
CU C
1
0 E
m =- cu
1
0 0
00
9�
A�
00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O (7) 00 r- CO to V M N
ajo3s IWW
80
t0
0
aao3S IWW
•
O's
M ON
N O O
■ ■ r
M N N - O O
Ln
anlen ld3
U
m
m
n
0
0 -
LO m
ED
OD
ED
O
CD
f
11,
M
r
2
� al
Wo
Wo
N
U _
O
0
i
s
aaooS INN
92
�
0 e ON
§ §
i
|�
\
■
■
■
■
��
■
■
e § §
: ^ :
o » _
■
■
■
■
_����
§ \ \
■
■
z
■
■
00
G \ \
■
■
0Wl �
■
■ _���
e AV
! �
��
■
■
�_ ®
�; {$
■
■
■
■
®
f § [
■
�
ACL}
|
|
§#
■
■
■
■ z �
■
■
� ��
■
■
■
■
■
■ �
z z
■ _z
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
mom
■
■ ■
� �
6 9
■ ■
■ ■
g I-
C: y f
q ® %
[
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
» E
�'e
■ ■
E
0-E
�E u
■ ■�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p
§ § \ § § $ § § $ °
aoSaw
aaooS INN
2x21 ld3 }o aagwnN
O O O O O O O O O o 0
O 0) 00 r CO Ln V M N - O
anlen ISH
m
W
U
(7
a
U
(7
a
H
U
(7
a
H
m
U
(7
a
ur
U
(7
LY
U
(7
0-
I
f
11,
0
N
0 0
N N
■
M I�
O O
N N
N CO O
O O O
0 0 0
N
1
1
a �
s
�
1
w
1
� �
o
1
1
C
E .
C
N —
Q
d LL
1
FEE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N ..
O
II Lo
+- II
N N C:
N i E
CU
�. 0-
O E
0
m :_. (B
1
aaooS IWW
aao3S IWW
I
0
4
f
11,
N
C�
W
f
11,
LO
N
i
aaooS IAA
2x21 ld3 }o aagwnN
anlen ISH
a)
a)
C:
L-
a)
a)
�_
cnE
4-0
0-
O
0
a)
4-0
a
Q
cn
cm
E
c
'E
0cn
._
•C:
C:
0)
—
Q
C:
�
CUcn
C:
CD
O
N
N
�
U
C:
E
I
a
O
_
.0
O
Lcn
Ep
cn
N
U
a)
>
_�
m
O
N
N
L
cn
O
>
U
C:O
O
U
}'
cn
cn
0
C
4-0
o
a)
o
a)
E
c�•�
c
a
o
E
a)
4-0
o
�
0
4-0
L-
U
>
cn
O
—
0�
�
ca
L-
O>
0
0.�
o
m
a)
o
��
�
UCn
UCS
�CL
1
W
Qw
C N
Fyl'
_ O =
ca C LL (6 Q'
�1
Lu 'a
I
Llo
_-.
ro
r�
V
QJ
Oi
71
r�
V
u
A
d
W
Qw
C N
Fyl'
_ O =
ca C LL (6 Q'
Lu 'a
Llo
_-.
ro
w C w
0-= OCD E.o
w CL Z- _ 3
Iv
O (KI
f -
r�^^.-�
ch )
y
p 0 7C a)
/r
� .2f6 C E
-
•- '
C
C) ' o
o z (nrVA
�'
J
(
o a� �ppw
m
2 i�i
A N
O
O �, C fA
Z .O N 0 N
E(oc�i�v_�
CL z w (p Q
'
•1.I
�
C N (0 (6 p _0
w Fn z a�
a�
(7AIk.
�-`
ZZ0CDzo
zz m
C3/ti
Qp - f6 -0p
(
(n
O (0 -O.
r�
V
QJ
Oi
71
r�
V
u
A
d
exel ld3 3o aagwnN
Q
o
a`)
E
Q
W
■
m
Q Q
O U
a) —
a-
1
loom
O O O O O cm)
O O O O O O
CO L!7 V M N
(ZLul#) A;!suaa
J Wd
R W
Li 1'
W 11
. V)
-61m
f
M
Ad #: QDlj80PohnvNA79wyiTo
Customer: Shelley Bellm
PEC Agenda 022822
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO) SS
COUNTY OF EAGLE)
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of, says: The Vail
Daily, that the same weekly 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; that said newspaper has been admitted to
the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a
weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and
advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the
regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the
period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the
issue of said newspaper dated 25 Feb 2022 in the issue of said
newspaper.
Total cost for publication: $61.33
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates.
Publi her
Subscribed to and sworn to me this date, 02/25/2022
R�0-0-�
Notary Public, Eagle County, Colorado
My commission expires: August 19, 2024
Lori A WCole
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20204031017
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES September 91h. 2024
See Proof on Next Page
PEC Agenda 022822 - Page 1 of 2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION
February Z8. 2022. 1:00 PM
Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75
S. Frontage Road - Val 1, Colorado. 31657
1 _ Cali to order
1.1. Re aster in advance for this webinar: Kt"-(/us02we�. zocm.ua*ebinarhegisteTMN_
QJybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6 FE0g
After registering, you vAll receive a confirmation
email containing 3nlormation aboutjointng the
webinar.
1.2. Attendance
2. Executive Session
2.1. C.R S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a
coofefence with the Town Attorney to receive
legal adviceon specific legs! estions regarding
proposed code amendments.715 min)
3. Main Agenda
3.1. A request for a recommendation to the
Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Reegqulation
Amendment pursuant to Section 12 7 Amendrrerit,
Vail Town Cade to amend Section 12-14-17
Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section
12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody
Setback Re IEfflons, Vail Town Code, to change
the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) (20 min
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pete
Wadden
Planner: Greg Roy
4. Approval of Minutes
4.1. February 14, 2022 PEC Results
5. Informational Update
5.1. Aquatic Entoraologtst, Dave Rees, will provide
an update on macro mverlebrate populations in
Gore Creek as survey in September 2020. (40 min)
Appplicant• Town of 1Pail
Pranner: Pete Wadden
6. Adjournment
The applications and information about the
proposals are available tot public inspection.
=d r uIa[ office hours at the Town of Vail
Commune Deveicpment. Department, 75 South
Frontage oad. The public is invited to attend the
projW orientation and the site visits that precede
the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community
Development Department. Times and order of items
are approbmate, subject to change, and cannot be
Eeliedd upon todeteme[ne at what me the Planning
and Envronmenial Commission will consider an
item. Please call (970) 479-2136 for additional
nformation Please roll 711 foe sign language
interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Del artment
Published in the Vail Dail F ua 25, 2022
PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 25, 2022.
PEC Agenda 022822 - Page 2 of 2
Ad #: jsroz2xXIJMksHJWgog5
Customer: Danielle Couch
2/28/22 PEC Notice
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO) SS
COUNTY OF EAGLE)
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of, says: The Vail
Daily, that the same weekly 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; that said newspaper has been admitted to
the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a
weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and
advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the
regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the
period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the
issue of said newspaper dated 11 Feb 2022 in the issue of said
newspaper.
Total cost for publication: $22.77
That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates.
Publi her
Subscribed to and sworn to me this date, 02/11/2022
V�0Ua�
Notary Public, Eagle County, Colorado
My commission expires: August 19, 2024
Lori A McCole
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20204031017
MY COMMSSION EXPIRES SW—iber91h.2024
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and
Environmental Commission of the Town of Val will
hold a pubEic hearing in accordance with section 12-
3-. Town Cade, on February 28,2022011:00
pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Register in advance for this wetnai:
hM-ffus02web. zoo m.us.hwebinarlregisterANN_
OJ} �bkNzgG2eMGMYx H6 FEDg
After registering, you will receiv,- a confirmation
email containing information about joining the
wehinar.
No new items have been submitted for this meeting.
Tabled Dr continued Re ms from previous meetings
may be scheduled for this meeting date.
The applications and information about the
proposals are availaI for public inspection
duringg office hours atthe Town of Vail Community
Deveio ment De rtment, 75 South Frontage Road.
The pu�lic is invited to attend site visits. Please call
97(} 4- 13B or visit www vailgovcon V planning for
additional information.
Sign language irrtergretation available upon request
wii� 24-hour notification. dial 71 i.
PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 11, 2022.
2/28/22 PEC Notice - Page 1 of 1