The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-05-17 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Evening Meeting Agenda VAIL TO W N C O U N C IL R E G U L AR ME E TIN G Evening Agenda Town Council C hambers and Virtual on Zoom 6:00 PM, May 17, 2022 Meeting to be held in C ouncil Chambers and Virtually on Zoom (access H igh Five Access Media livestream day of the meeting) Notes: Times of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time C ounc il will consider an item. Public comment will be taken on each agenda item. Citizen participation offers an opportunity for citizens to express opinions or ask questions regarding town services, policies or other matters of community conc ern, and any items that are not on the agenda. Please attempt to keep c omments to three minutes; time limits established are to provide efficienc y in the c onduct of the meeting and to allow equal opportunity for everyone wishing to speak. 1.Citizen Participation (10 min.) 1.1.Citizen Participation 2.Any action as a result of executive session 3.Proclamations 3.1.Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2022, Celebrating 40 Years of Eagle County Paramedic Services 5 min. Presenter(s): J im Bradford and W ill Dunn, Eagle County Paramedics Action Requested of Council: Approve Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2022. Background: Eagle County Paramedic Services provides emergency medical response service to Eagle County and portions of Garfield County, Colorado; in addition to response to emergencies, Eagle County Paramedic Services has extensive critical care, search and rescue, wildland fire E MS and community paramedic programs as well as community health education functions and Eagle County Paramedic Services owns 14 ambulances housed in stations in Vail, Avon, Edwards, Eagle and Gypsum and more than 80 employees work for the District in various roles and Eagle County Paramedic Services responded to almost 5500 calls in 2021 including 9-1-1 calls and Community Paramedic calls. 4.Youth Scholarship Recognition 4.1.Town of Vail Scholarship Program Recognitions 5 min. Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor The Town of Vail has offered a financial scholarship program for Vail seniors who have achieved academic excellence and leadership success May 17, 2022 - Page 1 of 549 and commitment to the Vail community. The scholarship is to help fund students who are pursuing their next chapter in life at either a college, university or technical school. The 2022 award will be given to two senior students, Celia Barrie and Amelia Blevins. 4.2.Colorado Grand Scholarship Award Recognition 5 min. Presenter(s): Kim Langmaid, Mayor and Ed O'Brien, Colorado Grand Representatives The Colorado Grand has offered an annual scholarship program to students attending local schools in Eagle County. The 2022 award will be given to a senior student who attends one of the local High Schools. Ed O'Brien, representing Colorado Grand, will recognize the student and highlight the upcoming summer Colorado Grand program, an event that has been in Vail for over 30 years. 5.Consent Agenda (5 min.) 5.1.Resolution No. 26, Series of 2022, a Resolution Approving an I ntergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the U.S. Geological Survey Concerning Stream Access for the Purpose of Water Chemistry and Temperature Monitoring Background: The U.S. Geological Survey plans to undertake a study of surface water and groundwater interchange between Gore Creek and connected drinking water aquifers in Vail. I n order to complete the study, US GS scientists need to place long-term temperature and conductivity monitors in Gore Creek. They have requested to access 12 sites along Gore Creek through Town of Vail public stream tract. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 26, Series of 2022 5.2.Resolution No. 27, Series of 2022, a Resolution Adopting the Peer Resort Exchange Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Vail, Colorado and St. Moritz, Switzerland Background: The Town of Vail Town Council is interested in the activation of its peer resort exchange programs and relationships with other similar mountain resort communities to provide a platform that encourages the bilateral exchange of information, establishes cooperation and collaboration on relevant resort and community initiatives, and presents opportunities to exchange experiences related to the important topics of sustainability, tourism, economy, environment, and community. The resolution and agreements (and MOU) have been executed by St. Moritz officials. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Resolution No. 27, Series of 2022 5.3.Letter of Support for the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (C ORE) Act Background: At the request of the Council, a letter of support for Mayor Langmaid's signature on behalf of the Vail Town Council is provided. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with modifications, the C ORE Act letter of support, and direct staff to forward to Colorado congressional representatives. 5.4.Professional Services Agreement for the J uly 4 Drone Show Background: Staff presented a plan to Town Council in March 2022 to May 17, 2022 - Page 2 of 549 replace the traditional J uly 4 fireworks with a custom drone show. Staff Recommendation: Direct the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Verge Aero in an amount not to exceed $100,000, for the production of the J uly 4th Drone Show, on a form approved by the Town Attorney. 5.5.Statewide Pesticide Applicator Act Background: The State Pesticide Applicator Act includes a preemption on local regulation of pesticides and landscaping chemicals. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies "Pesticides, Herbicides, Fertilizers, and I nsecticides" among the primary causes of impairment in Gore Creek. I t would benefit the larger Restore the Gore effort if that local preemption were to be lifted and the Town were empowered to better regulate the use of landscaping chemicals within its jurisdiction. Staff Recommendation: Approve the comments drafted by the Environmental Sustainability Department. 5.6.Contract Award to Gillig Battery to Replace the Electric Buses Background: The TOV owns and operates 33 transit buses, the buses are on a 12 year replacement plan, which is consistent with FTA requirements that a transit bus be designed and operate for a minimum of 12 years. The manufacturer is stating that current order build dates are out to 2024 due to supply chain issues that are affecting everyone. The bus replacement plan has six buses to be replaced in 2023 that will be battery electric. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the town manager to enter into a contract a form approved by the Town Attorney to purchase 6 Gillig Battery Electric Buses in the amount not to exceed $5,514,450. 6.Town Manager Report (10 min.) 6.1.Town of Vail's Alternatives for Housing Correspondence to Vail Resorts 7.Action Items 7.1.Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022, a Resolution of the Vail Town Council Making Findings on the Appeal of D RB22-0035, Concerning a Residential Project Located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado and upholding the Decision of the Design Review Board, with a Modified Condition of Approval 10 min. Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022. Background: On May 3, 2022, the Town Council held a properly-noticed hearing on the appeal, and the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to present evidence in support of its appeal. Following the hearing, the Town Council directed the Town Attorney to prepare a Resolution with written findings regarding the appeal. 7.2.Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, First Reading, an Ordinance Amending Title 12 and Title 14 of the Vail Town Code to Amend the Regulations for Building Design and Landscaping in the W ildland Urban I nterface to Reduce the Risk of W ildfire 20 min. Presenter(s): Paul Cada, W ildland Fire and J onathan Spence, Planning Manager Action Requested of Council: The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve May 17, 2022 - Page 3 of 549 with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, upon first reading. Background: The Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) heard this application on February 14th, 2022. The P E C had concerns on removing the minimum 500 square feet exemption and voted (7-0) to recommend approval with the condition that the exemption relating to additions under 500 square feet in Section 12-11-3 remain. At the May 3rd Town Council meeting, during the review of the building code update, Council indicated they were in support of removing this exemption and the Ordinance has been amended accordingly. Staff Recommendation: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval, on first reading, of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2022. 7.3.Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2022, First Reading, an Ordinance Replacing Chapter 14 of Title 4 of the Vail Town Code to Update Short-Term Rental Regulations and License Requirements 60 min. Presenter(s): Kathleen Halloran, Director of Finance and Alex J akubiec, Revenue Manager Action Requested of Council: Approve or approve with amendments First Reading Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 Background: Based on feedback received during the short-term rental (S TR) study presented at the J anuary 17, February 15, March 15, and April 5, 2022, Vail Town Council meetings the attached Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 is presented for consideration. At the last meeting, Council supported an increase in penalties for violations, requirements for increased insurance, fire safety inspections and an increase in license fees to cover administration costs. Council also supported a per-bedroom fee to fund housing initiatives, but a fee amount was not yet determined. Staff Recommendation: Approve or approve with amendments First Reading Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 7.4.Review and Approve Recommended Summer Parking Program 2022 20 min. Presenter(s): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation, and Stephanie Kashiwa, Parking Operations Manager Action Requested of Council: Provide direction to the staff regarding the recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program to include: Direct staff to modify the paid overnight fee program put in place during the summers of 2018, 2019 and 2021, with the elimination of the Hotel, Condo free voucher program. Set the overnight fee associated with the program. Background: The purpose of this item is to: Provide Town Council the Parking recommendation for the Summer 2022 Parking Program Request Town Council approve the Summer 2022 Parking Program Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Town Council approve the staff recommendations and overnight fee for the Summer 2022 Parking Program. 8.Public Hearings 8.1.Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 approving a I ntergovernmental Agreement 15 min. May 17, 2022 - Page 4 of 549 between The Towns of Avon. Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail Eagle County and Beaver Creek Metro District with the intent to agree to form a Regional Transit Agency Presenter(s): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation Action Requested of Council: Conduct the second of two statutory public hearings on the formation of the Regional Transit Authority and consider Resolution No.25 Series of 2022 approving an I ntergovernmental Agreement between The Towns of Avon. Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail Eagle County and Beaver Creek Metro District Background: On May 3, the first of two mandatory public hearings was conducted by the Vail Town Council concerning the approval of an I ntergovernmental Agreement with the intent to form a regional transportation authority within Eagle County. The Agreement will need to be amended prior to approving the the specific formation and funding ballot to be placed on the November General Election for the voters of Vail to consider. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 approving an I ntergovernmental Agreement between The Towns of Avon. Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail Eagle County and Beaver Creek Metro District with the intent to agree to form a Regional Transit Agency and place ballots for the Vail electorate to form and fund the RTA in the upcoming November General Election. 8.2.Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to Establish Setbacks from Gore Creek and its Tributaries 20 min. Presenter(s): Peter Wadden, Watershed Education Coodinator and Greg Roy, Senior Planner Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon second reading. Background: The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” The Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. Staff Recommendation: Approve second reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 8.3.Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2022, an Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Vail Town Code and Adopting by Reference the 2021 Editions of the I nternational Building Code, I nternational Residential Code, I nternational Fire Code, I nternational Energy Conservation Code, I nternational Plumbing Code, I nternational Fuel Gas Code, I nternational Mechanical Code, I nternational Existing Building Code, and the 2020 Edition of the National electrical Code, with Amendments; and Adopting the 1997Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, with Amendments. 15 min. Presenter(s): C J J arecki, Chief Building Official Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance Number 8, Series of 2022. Background: The building codes are updated on a three-year cycle after an May 17, 2022 - Page 5 of 549 extensive, 3-step code development process in which all interested and affected parties may participate. This allows for the codes to stay current with continually changing laws, practices and technology that affect the construction industry. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance Number 8, Series of 2022 as submitted. 8.4.Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance Correcting Various Sections of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to Reflect Changes in the State Law 5 min. Presenter(s): J ohnathan Spences, Planning Manager Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, on second reading. Background: During a routine audit, American Legal Publishing, the Vail Town Code codifier, identified a limited number of instances where the code references to Colorado Revised Statues are out of date. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 corrects these outdated references. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 on second reading. 8.5.Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance Amending Section 6-3D-4.a.4. of the Vail Town Code, Regarding Harassment 5 min. Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney Action Requested of Council: Approve, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2022. Background: The Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in People v. Moreno, 22 C O 15 (2022) held that certain language in the state harassment statute, C.R.S. § 18-9-111(1)(e), was an impermissible restriction on free speech. Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2022. 9.Adjournment 9.1.Adjournment 9:30 pm (estimate) Meeting agendas and materials can be acc es s ed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail webs ite www.vailgov.com. All town c ouncil meetings will be streamed live by High F ive Ac cess Media and available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. T he meeting videos are als o posted to High F ive Ac cess Media website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org. P leas e c all 970-479-2136 for additional information. S ign language interpretation is available upon reques t with 48 hour notification dial 711. May 17, 2022 - Page 6 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Citizen P articipation AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Citizen Participation May 17, 2022 - Page 7 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: VA Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 5:38:28 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: JOHN & DIANA DONOVAN <dianamdonovan@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:17 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: VA They just put out a nasty tweet against town of vail and continue saying they have an approved project. They have changed the previously approved project that they had no working relationship with the town on. They have made substantial changes to that plan so it is a different plan and they should be required to do more than just DRB. The substantial studies needed to make a “hazardous” site safe from rock falls and ground water have never been done. Obviously they are not going to work in good faith with the council when they continue to lie and mislead their employees and the public on every little fact. They have no integrity. And the town continues to decline because of them. Sad times for me especially. Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 8 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Thank you Town council Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 2:55:10 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Malin Johnsdotter <malin@vail.net> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:45 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Thank you Town council Town council, Thank you all for your decision to vote for a way to keep the conversation open and to find a solution of Bott Heights and at the same time put real official pressure on Vail Resorts to participate and be part of a decision that we all can be proud of. It was nerve recking to sit and watch all the speakers. Funny even if I work and have worked for Vail Resort for 36 years i did only recognize one of the company speakers, Chris from the lift, but almost everybody who talked about the importance of saving wild life I know and see around town all the time. Thank you all for delivering your final speeches with such elegance and friendly tone. You all presented the best in government. As soon as I got home after the session I wrote my friends Ingie May 17, 2022 - Page 9 of 549 Franberg and Patti Langmaid and I would like to share part of that email with you. You don’t need to read it but I just want you to know how happy I was for the decision for now. "then finally at 9 pm Kim declared that nobody else wanted to talk. Then the council started to talk Pete Seibert first and he was excellent he talked about the importance of talking to each other and collaboration he invited VR to come back and talk. But he voted No to condemnation. but in a very nice way. Then Kevin F : Very nice talk,Then Joe S who talked about values and I did not first understand where he was going but he voted condemn. Then Jan Mason who was just amazing. She thanked everybody, she smiled and invited everybody to collaborate with an enormous smile. At the same time she very clearly said that VR had refused to talk about the any collaboration. How town had asked VR to collaborate at the Vail Residents next to Middle Creek but VR had not even responded. But then suddenly 2 weeks ago when the word condemnation was uttered VR had rushed to every member on town council willing to talk and NOW she hoped VR would continue to collaborate. All with the nicest smile. Travis and Barry were great too they talked about solutions and how to put pressure on VR. Then Kevin reminded everybody that some law, rule could be used to keep the conversation going. Then Kim very very elegantly also with the kindest smile hoped for collaboration and she was sure the TOV and VR would find solutions and then she voted to condemn. Everybody who spoke were polite and never rude. It was so interesting to be there and see it." Thank you all and I hope you will find a way to solve this so that Vail can heal. Malin Malin Johnsdotter malin@vail.net cell 970-376-6526 1779 Sierra Trail #A, Vail, CO 81657 USA May 17, 2022 - Page 10 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: The East Vail Parcel Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 2:56:42 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Betsy <betsy@holter.co> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:36 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: The East Vail Parcel To The Vail Town Council: As the world moves toward corporate governance by the few, with the many expected to fall in line and do as told, I am compelled to express my view that the parcel of land which Vail Resorts intends to develop in East Vail should be left alone. We depend on our elected representatives to act in our interests. Perhaps we also need to be certain no money is changing hands among the few to facilitate the development that the many have rejected? Elizabeth Holter 4094 Lupine Drive, Unit A Sent from my iPad May 17, 2022 - Page 11 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Habitat Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 2:57:14 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Arlen Holter <arlenholter@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 1:16 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Habitat Dear Council, As an East Vail homeowner for 30 years and full time resident for 10 years, I am writing to you in support of keeping Booth Heights for wildlife, not for a housing development. You have heard testimony about this matter, so I will not repeat the arguments. Please consider the opinions of East Vail residents. Sincerely, Arlen R Holter, MD, MS May 17, 2022 - Page 12 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Condemning Vail Resorts" decision to build on Booth Heights Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:08:05 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Page McClean <pagemcclean@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 12:11 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Condemning Vail Resorts' decision to build on Booth Heights Dear Vail Town Council, I support your challenge to Vail Resorts' decision to build on valuable conservation lands in Booth Heights. As the Town of Vail has demonstrated, one does not have to choose between conservation of critical habitat and the construction of affordable housing. There are other parcels that Vail Resorts could build on that would leave this land as wildlife habitat. Humans can choose where to build; bighorn sheep cannot. Thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, Page McClean May 17, 2022 - Page 13 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Employee housing Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:12:28 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Becki Vickers <beckivickers@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 10:16 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Employee housing Hi! I’m writing on behalf of the herd of bighorn sheep that live on the booth heights proposed spot. This is not the place for a NEW DEVELOPMENT!! These sheep live there! It is their home - not a home to a big corporation to come in and take away their habitat. There are so many places to build on existing ground with all utilities etc in place. Please don’t let big corp take away this away from the sheep!! Thank you Becki and Kenny vickers Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 14 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Eminent Domain Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:14:12 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Dowdle. <stephen@dowdle.net> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:23 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Eminent Domain Dear Town Council, I would like to express my appreciation to you for passing the resolution to move forward with eminent domain on the Booth Heights parcel. I agree with the sentiment expressed that it is a shame that the Town Council was put in the position to approve eminent domain as the only way to save the big horn sheep habitat. With regards to this issue, Vail Resorts (VR) has shown that they are not a willing or reliable collaborator and will pull out all stops to retain and develop this parcel including trying to divide the community as rich vs poor. Shame on VR. If VR really cared about affordable housing they would sit down with TOV and come up with solutions that address the housing and environmental concerns of all stakeholders. There are many options available. Thank you again for your concern. I can share with you as a resident in East Vail that this whole issue has given me pause to think whether Vail will continue to be a desirable place to live over the next decades. I would urge the TOV and VR to collaborate and develop a vision for the future of the valley. If VR continues to operate in the way they are presently (such as selling as many Epic passes as possible thereby maximizing skier population with little regard for skier safety, continue to be opaque regarding skier accidents on the mountain, continue to bulldoze their decisions forward without collaboration with TOV such as extending the season to May 1st, seeming to have no regard or vision for the Vail valley in the decades to come) it makes me very pessimistic about the future in the valley. Thank you for your courage and your service. Sincerely, May 17, 2022 - Page 15 of 549 Stephen Dowdle Sent from my iPad stephen@dowdle.net May 17, 2022 - Page 16 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Thank you for finally rejecting a flawed project Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:14:51 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Kirsty Hintz <kirsty_hintz@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 8:54 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Thank you for finally rejecting a flawed project Dear Town Council Sometimes it is hard to remedy a wrong that in my view kept on being more wrong the more I knew about the facts and the actors. However you showed incredible leadership for our town and respect for the concerns of the residents who voted for you. We live in a fragile ecosystem and we have an obligation to protect it. I am dreading the new lane on the I-70 up from East Vail. The noise is already unbearable in the summer where I live. Truckers don’t drive at the speed limit and then they change gear to go uphill. Look at the trash that is thrown out from the I-70 but also look at the erosion of our trails. Vail Resorts - an unfortunate name in my opinion, clearly views the communities they operate in as trash that they can continuously erode. They have done a pretty good job. This company’s actions speak volumes - their vacuous words of supposed solidarity with “employees, guests, communities, the environment” are just that. The only driving force is finance - which is where the top peeps get their bonuses. There is greater urgency than ever for the Town Council to stand up for the Town. I totally agree that we need housing for employees of all businesses - hotels, schools, the town of Vail, shops, supermarkets and so on - but this project was flawed from the start. It had a flawed traffic report. (No mention of the Mountain School if you read it). It had biased wildlife reports. It said they were going to house 50% fewer people than might actually live there. The list goes on unfortunately. I witnessed the herd being harassed by a loose dog the other day. I reported it to the police and CPW. I am also sorry that you may have been harassed by a crowd of allegedly Vail Resorts employees yesterday evening. May 17, 2022 - Page 17 of 549 Travis Coggins, Pete Seibert and Barry Davis. I have no words. Well - I have four - who DO you represent? Great job to the majority. I hope that this result brings Vail Resorts to the negotiating table. Perhaps not if their bonuses depend on getting the maximum value for the site. This was a wrong for so many reasons that needed to be righted. Thank you for listening to and empowering our community. Kirsty Hintz May 17, 2022 - Page 18 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: The right decision Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:15:08 PM Attachments:image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Peggy Nicholls <vailnicholls@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 6:54 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: The right decision Dear Council Members, Thank you for all the effort you put into the Booth Heights problem. I feel so encouraged that you listened to the majority of your voters and did the right thing! The sheep are irreplaceable. All the best, Peggy Nicholls May 17, 2022 - Page 19 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: 5/3/22 Council meeting - Thank You Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:16:19 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia Ryerson <cindyvvss@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 4:03 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: 5/3/22 Council meeting - Thank You Dear Council and Mayor Langmaid, Thank you very much for patiently hearing all the public input last night regarding the booth Heights Parcel. We are happy that our town is standing up for what is right for the environment and future of of community and its voiceless Big Horn sheep residents. Here’s to moving forward with saving the sheep and smart employee housing alternatives. Cindy Ryerson 4859 Meadow Drive Unit B Vail, Co. 81657 970-390-5759 Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 20 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Thank you Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:16:33 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: vailrye@hotmail.com <vailrye@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 4:01 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Thank you Dear Vail Town Council and Mayor Langmaid, I know how difficult it must be to have to make the decision to proceed to condemnation. I truly feel that you were backed into a corner by the numerous sleight of hand maneuvers of VRI. I commend you for making such a hard decision and looking out for the future of the town, the valley, and it’s inhabitants both two and four legged. Many thanks, Tony Ryerson 4859 Meadow Dr Vail, CO 81657 Tony Ryerson May 17, 2022 - Page 21 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Condemnation Date:Thursday, May 5, 2022 3:17:14 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: William Gottlieb <wgmd1@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:38 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Condemnation I wanted to thank you all personally for doing the right thing in last night’s vote to condemn and save the area and sheep from the shortsighted development plans of VRI. This is what good, honest government does…..it governs for the people and the environment, not just big business. Thank you again! William E. Gottlieb, MD 3021 Booth Falls Road Vail, Co. Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 22 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vote NO On Housing Condemnation Date:Friday, May 6, 2022 9:45:49 AM Attachments:image008.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Sarah broach <Sarah.broach.548355857@p2a.co> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 6:24 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vote NO On Housing Condemnation Vail Town Council, [please describe your relationship to Vail town] I ask you to vote to approve the Vail Mountain workforce housing project. The Town should not use condemnation (eminent domain) for a parcel that would be developed within zoning guidelines, and has been approved by a prior council and the Eagle County District Court. Government seizure of private lands is an extreme action and should be opposed. The Town of Vail has taken strides to be a good partner in addressing workforce housing issues through the development of projects such as Lions Ridge and Residences at Main Vail and programs such as Vail InDeed. Throwing away this partnership through government overreach is ill-advised and I May 17, 2022 - Page 23 of 549 encourage you to vote NO on condemnation of this property. Regards, Sarah broach 1650 Fall Ridge Rd Vail, CO 81657 May 17, 2022 - Page 24 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Condemnation resolution Date:Friday, May 6, 2022 9:47:10 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image012.png Please see the below request from Suzanne. Thanks Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Suzanne Silverthorn <SSilverthorn@vailgov.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 4:23 PM To: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Condemnation resolution Tammy, would you forward a PDF of the signed resolution when you have it? We’ll post to the web. Thanks! Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Communications Director May 17, 2022 - Page 25 of 549 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 970.471.1361 cell 970.479.2115 office vailgov.com May 17, 2022 - Page 26 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Resolution Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 9:30:03 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: rolvail@aol.com <rolvail@aol.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 7:04 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Resolution Thanks so much once again for voting with integrity for our herd of Bighorns over the business interests of one company, which has, by the way, passed up multiple other opportunities for such projects over the years. Rol Hamelin Ingie Franberg May 17, 2022 - Page 27 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: CPW Public Comments 5/3/22 Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 9:29:55 AM Attachments:TOV - Booth Heights Res.No22_Public Comment.pdf image009.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Duval - DNR, Devin <devin.duval@state.co.us> Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2022 8:02 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Fwd: CPW Public Comments 5/3/22 Please find attached CPW's public comments that were provided in person at the 5.3.22 TOV Town Council Meeting. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Respectfully, Devin Duval -- Devin Duval District Wildlife Manager May 17, 2022 - Page 28 of 549 P 970.947.2920 | C 970.930.5264 0088 Wildlife Way, Glenwood Springs 81601 devin.duval@state.co.us | cpw.state.co.us May 17, 2022 - Page 29 of 549 Area 8 – NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 | F 970.947.2936 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair Honorable Kim Langmaid May 3, 2022 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Public Comments for Resolution No. 22 Dear Mayor Langmaid, and Town Council Members, The following is a written submission of CPW comments from the Vail Town Council Meeting dated May 3rd, 2022 (Please note this includes additional information that was not given during public comment due to time limitations): Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. As you know, CPW is a referral agency that functions as a resource to municipal governments among many other entities. As such, we do not take sides, we present facts and provide information to decision makers as it relates to the wildlife resource, so that decision makers might be able to operate with the best available information. Herd History/Species Info: With regards to the Gore/Eagle’s Nest bighorn sheep herd: This is an endemic herd, they are native to this valley. This is one of only a few premier high elevation alpine sheep herds in the state that has had negligible or no human intervention as a part of management.  Specific to bighorn sheep, they are a niche species, not a generalist species. What this means is that they need a highly specific set of biological conditions to exist and persist on the landscape. If they don’t have access to steep escape terrain, open sight lines, cliffs, and specific south facing slopes that provide forage in the winter, they simply won’t exist. The Gore/Eagle’s Nest sheep herd is already extremely limited in the amount of winter range that is available to it.  The current, most pressing limiting factors and threats to this particular herd are habitat loss, specifically; loss of winter range, and potential for disease transmission. I wish I could say this is isolated to Vail, but this is happening all over the Western U.S. Clarification - SAM Layers: As for a number of points needing clarification and correction: CPW’s Species Activity Map layers and habitat boundaries represent large landscape level generalization of wildlife habitat and how particular species might utilize habitat types. These layers serve to supplement on the ground knowledge of wildlife managers and biologists. Wildlife does not recognize geo-political boundaries, and these layers are most accurately interpreted at a broad landscape level. Furthermore, selective application and use of wildlife habitat layers without CPW consultation can serve to distort the information. The area in question is in fact May 17, 2022 - Page 30 of 549 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair bighorn sheep severe winter range, and sheep use of the parcel in question is routinely documented, as further denoted by Triumph’s own consultant biologist. Mitigation: In 2019 the Town of Vail convened a group of biologists to include CPW staff to discuss mitigation efforts. During discussions there was unanimous agreement that the best way to achieve 100% efficacious mitigation was to find an alternative development site. This was done. It is also important to note that this extensive and collaborative process to find a new site, and thus provide a “win-win” for housing, developers and wildlife alike was achieved.  That being said, mitigation still routinely results in a net loss for wildlife. In looking at local elk herd populations as a case study for mitigation effectiveness, the efforts to minimize or negate impacts do not survive the test of time. Mitigation measures, over time, are forgotten, go unenforced, or entities slowly gravitate away from the agreed upon or desired conditions.  Additionally, impacts to wildlife are not created equal. High density, and high intensity human use will elicit a different level of disturbance than that of lower intensity, distributed human impacts.  Furthermore, all species have a threshold for the amount of disturbance they can withstand. That is to say, current ambient amounts of disturbance does not mean wildlife will tolerate additional impacts. Closing: In closing, CPW is here to collaborate with communities to address pressing wildlife issues, but collectively, we should not wait until herds are imperiled in order to drive us to action. It is increasingly necessary to work proactively to ensure that wildlife has a chance to exist not just for us but for future generations. CPW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this Resolution. For any questions or concerns, please contact District Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at (970) 930-5264 Sincerely, Devin Duval District Wildlife Manager – Vail District May 17, 2022 - Page 31 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heigths Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 9:29:00 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Richard M. Leslie <richardmleslie@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 11:56 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Kiehl Betsey <betseykci@comcast.net> Subject: Booth Heigths Thanks for your courage in doing the right and necessary thing. I spoke to Council at the beginning when Vail Resorts “discovered” that they owned the property, even though they had NOT paid ANY taxes on it for well over 40 years. I begged the Council, as a trial lawyer, to NOT change the zoning. I pointed out ALL the problems still to be solved, emphasizing that Council would LOSE control, if they granted rezoning THEN without knowing ALL the PROBLEMS. Council did NOT listen, granted the rezoning, and has been stuck in the mess they should have avoided ever since. Now, THIS Council is doing the hard way what that Council SHOULD have done those 3+ years ago. THANKS!! And please don’t give up, we are counting on you to do it RIGHT, finally. May 17, 2022 - Page 32 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save the Sheep Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 12:42:20 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Shelly Gruner <shschatzi@aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 12:15 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: Save the Sheep Dear Town Council, The Gruner Family would like to thank you for making the best decision for the Vail community. Sincerely, Shelly, Hansi and Felix Gruner Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 16, 2022, at 7:31 AM, Shelly Gruner <shschatzi@aol.com> wrote: > > Please do the right thing for our community! > The future generations are counting on you. > Please find an alternative place to build. > Thank you very much, Shelly, Hansi and Felix Gruner > > Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 33 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Booth Heights Date:Monday, May 9, 2022 12:42:42 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: John Reimers <johnreimers@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:56 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Booth Heights Vail town council, I am a full time resident, tax payer, property owner and voter. First of all I would like to thank council members Foley, Staufer, Mason, and Mayor Langmaid for voting to condemn the land known as Booth Heights. I urge the other council members Seibert, Loggins and Davis to support making this land open space to protect the wildlife in Vail. It’s seems to me that this Booth Heights project is about maximizing profits in the name of work force housing. I feel the town would be better served by protecting the sheep which, in this case, would add greater value to our town. FYI, over the last 20 years of living in Vail I have commuted to Philadelphia once a week for my job in order to make a life here for my family. Best regards, John Reimers Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 34 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep Date:Friday, May 13, 2022 1:47:00 PM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: mary ellen anderson <dezinz@mac.com> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2022 12:41 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Save our valley’s Big Horn Sheep Dear Council members, It is imperative that you act effectively to stop VR’s plans to build in East Vail. Debbie Ford, with continued backing from so many of us Vail residents, and Merv Lapin have stated to perfection this issue and the solutions. Please Condemn the property. Over the years of growth, the vision and integrity for the town has been lost as we’ve been bulldogged by VR. My parents build a family home here in 1964. At that time, the Vail imperative was one of a community within the bounds and limits of Nature. Growth and energies to maintain a balance with Nature’s open space have been challenging. And now the BigHorn Sheep is the last hurrah of seizing the original Vail Valley community commitment for this town with Nature at its best reserve. May 17, 2022 - Page 35 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: East Vail Workforce Housing Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:18:51 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 3:33 PM To: DRB <drb@vailgov.com>; Shelley Bellm <SBellm@vailgov.com> Cc: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: East Vail Workforce Housing Dear Design Review Board Members: As Vail Resorts marches through the final approval process on the East Vail site, I wonder if you have been presented with a detailed drawing of how the housing and the berm above integrate into the hillside? During the previous approval process members of the PEC and public repeatedly asked the developer to provide a complete and comprehensive rendering but none was delivered. What we saw were drawings on the design of the berm but not a full picture of how the development and berm work on the hillside. The Town and public need to be fully aware of what this development will really look like, if it is approved. May 17, 2022 - Page 36 of 549 We did hear from landscape architects and others who stated that due to steepness of the slope and soil disruption the area would not revegetate and would remain a barren scar. I am attaching photographs of the existing berm to the west of the proposed housing project. One photo was taken during a very high moisture year. The other taken during the current dry spring. Clearly revegetation is extremely limited. Since we as homeowners can’t do major landscaping, tree removal or replacement, without DRB review, it is clearly in DRB’s purview to review this piece of the project and make the information public. Thank you for your time serving on the DRB. Regards, Pam Stenmark Pamela Stenmark pamelas@vail.net (c) 970-376-1124 May 17, 2022 - Page 37 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 38 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vote NO On Housing Condemnation Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:20:03 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Tiffany Chlebek <Tiffany.Chlebek.551113130@p2a.co> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 6:39 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vote NO On Housing Condemnation Vail Town Council, [please describe your relationship to Vail town] I ask you to vote to approve the Vail Mountain workforce housing project. The Town should not use condemnation (eminent domain) for a parcel that would be developed within zoning guidelines, and has been approved by a prior council and the Eagle County District Court. Government seizure of private lands is an extreme action and should be opposed. The Town of Vail has taken strides to be a good partner in addressing workforce housing issues through the development of projects such as Lions Ridge and Residences at Main Vail and programs such as Vail InDeed. Throwing away this partnership through government overreach is ill-advised and I May 17, 2022 - Page 39 of 549 encourage you to vote NO on condemnation of this property. Regards, Tiffany Chlebek PO Box 6391 Vail, CO 81658 May 17, 2022 - Page 40 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Today"s article Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:21:13 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Kaye Ferry <kaye@kayeferry.com> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 9:38 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Today's article While I appreciate your efforts to avoiding more conflict with VR, I totally disagree with some of your suggestions for solving the housing issue. I’m not going through them individually because what it really comes down to is a philosophical difference. I do not think we should be offering VR a way out of this problem using TOV resources. By that I mean, for example, the offer to have them purchase or master lease something that is on our land or built with our taxes does not require them to use their resources. They have land while we are running out of it. So where does that leave us when the next crunch happens- and it will? We will have no place to left put more housing and they will have sold-for a significant profit- their land. Let’s require them to step up to the plated and solve the problem they have created- with their own resources. They will NEVER do that unless we stop offering them a way out.Why would they? It costs them nothing to master lease units-all they do is pass the cost on to their employees. It’s a no brainer for them. We need to beat them at their own game once and for all - something that no other Council has done in 60 years. May 17, 2022 - Page 41 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: A Discouraged Local Resident Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:21:56 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Karissa Both <bothkarissa@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 7:50 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: A Discouraged Local Resident Vail Town Council: I’m reaching out as an incredibly discouraged eagle county resident. I manage a large team of people in Vail and I am so tired of not having employees because they don’t have housing. I wrote in to you guys before you made the decision to vote 4 to 3 to move towards the ability to condemn the land. Many people did. The majority of the public that voiced their votes via email to you, letters to the editor, and who showed up in the room were in support of developing the east vail property. And it wasn’t only Vail Resorts representatives who were there. My discouragement and disappointment comes from the fact that, as the government, your job is to serve the people. To listen to the people. To decide based on what the people want. Your job is not to exercise the right to decide for the people based on what your personal opinions are. The people spoke in this case, yet the council’s decision did not at all represent what the people stood for. Personal opinions and multiple conflicts of interest shone through, and dictated your decisions. An example of this is the fact that the Museum is run off of donations. A large amount of those donors are East vail residents who are not in favor of this project being developed. The very person who accepts those donations and runs the museum sat at the table to vote in relation to this issue. How is this permitted and how is this not considered a conflict of interest? This question is not rhetorical and I’m truly asking for an answer. Please represent the people. And not just one demographic of the people, but the majority of the people. The people who work hard to work in jobs that others don’t want to do in order to make this town a place where people love to be and love to visit. Sincerely, A very discouraged local May 17, 2022 - Page 42 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 43 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: A Plea for Wild Sheep Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:05:51 AM Attachments:A Plea for Wild Sheep.docx image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Steve Reid <stevereid@oacminc.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:25 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: A Plea for Wild Sheep Good Morning Vail Town Council Members, I’m hoping to, humbly, submit this letter to you all for review and consideration. While we all try to embrace progress to some degree, there are limits to what OUR valley’s natural resources can handle. Thank You! Steve Reid Vail Native May 17, 2022 - Page 44 of 549 The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, an indispensable member of the greater East Vail ecosystem. Bighorn Creek, Bighorn Park, Bighorn Road, all named after the distinguished and now threatened Gore Sheep Herd. In 2020 I drew 1 of 3 sheep tags, which gave me access to hunt these most sacred and respected animals. Friends and family spent the next 4 ½ months helping me scour these mountains in search of a mature ram – 8 ½ years old or older. The journey which these sheep make over a twelve-month period will astonish you. The terrain in which two-month-old lambs navigate with ease would make you wince with uncertainty. From the July snowfields in Pitkin to some of the gnarliest nooks and crannies, found in the Gore Range - these sheep are thriving. Due to the combined efforts of CO Parks and Wildlife, Town of Vail, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, the revenue generated from license applications & fees, and most importantly – preservation of THEIR winter range. But most people will never know nor understand how miraculous “our” Gore sheep herd is. And as magnificent and enduring as they are, Bighorn Sheep have their limits. History and science support the effort to preserve this land which these sheep call home. I am one of the many that have had the unfortunate necessity of working for Vail Resorts and I can’t help but make a plea on behalf of the Wild Sheep that call East Vail home. We have all been impacted by Vail Resorts employee housing in some way, shape, or form, and to say this would have “no impact” on our Bighorn neighbors, in their most vulnerable months, is simply untrue and ignorant. Rob Katz is quoted on Vail Resort’s EpicPromise website, writing “The environment is our business, and we have a special obligation to protect it. As a growing global company so deeply connected to the outdoors, we are making a commitment to address our most pressing global environmental challenge and protect our local communities and natural resources.” (https://www.epicpromise.com/environment/commitment-to-zero/) I would challenge Vail Resorts to live up to the EpicPromise stated above. Sacrificing our wild sheep population is just another band aid but will not resolve your larger widespread issues. We need real and creative solutions that do not sacrifice our most vulnerable resources that have no voice: our wildlife populations and the land on which they live. For those folks in our community who agree, I would ask that you use your voice and stand up for “our” sheep herd. Encourage Vail Resorts to build at alternate and available employee housing locations. Who will stand on the side of those who were here first? Our native wild species have no other voice other than those of us who truly feel that “the environment is our business, and we have a special obligation to protect it.” If we cannot come together as a community in the name of conservation, then we all fall short of our duty to preserve what’s truly EPIC! Vail Native -Steve Reid May 17, 2022 - Page 45 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: West Middle Creek Rezoning Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 1:13:13 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Jenn Bruno <jennbruno3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 11:41 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: West Middle Creek Rezoning Hello Vail Town Council Thank you for discussing the rezoning of the West Middle Creek Parcel. This is a great opportunity for our community to create net new housing in Vail. This parcel is the perfect site for new workforce housing. It is next to a bus stop and within walking distance of Vail Village and Lionshead. It is only adjacent to other workforce housing, which will potentially avoid neighborhood opposition. I hope so. I know from the prior feasibility study that this parcel is developable. We can start development quickly. Our community needs this housing now. With only a small portion of the parcel being developed, we can still maintain a majority of the parcel for open space. The housing fund can be used to reimburse RETT for the original purchase. This is a great opportunity. May 17, 2022 - Page 46 of 549 Our community needs you to act quickly. Our current and future neighbors need your help. Thank you for creating solutions for our housing crisis. We are all aware of the land shortage in Vail. This is the best use for our current resources. Jenn Bruno West Vail May 17, 2022 - Page 47 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Rezone the West Middle Creek Parcel Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:49:12 AM Attachments:image.png image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Robyn Smith <robyn@embuzi.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:08 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Rezone the West Middle Creek Parcel Vail Town Council, Your May 13th letter to Vail Resorts titled "Town of Vail's Alternatives for Housing Correspondence to Vail Resorts" lays out several excellent options to increase the number of residential housing units within the Town of Vail. I encourage you to take action to rezone the West Middle Creek parcel, with or without Vail Resorts support or participation. The 2018 feasibility study makes it clear that this parcel is suitable for employee housing. The location would provide our workforce with safe and easy access to our town's commercial core. It would not impose upon any existing neighbors or properties. The close proximity of this employee housing to Vail would send a clear message that Vail is a place you want to live and work, and also a place that wants you. May 17, 2022 - Page 48 of 549 The parcel falls outside of critical habitat - most notably Elk Summer Range. The area above Middle Creek can be subject to the same April 15 - June 20 closures for Elk that North Vail is subject to. Enforcement would only require a small deployment of trail cameras. Having spent a great deal of time in the Middle Creek drainage, I can attest to the fact that the terrain is so challenging that it is highly unlikely that a significant increase in human presence and recreation would penetrate much further up into the secluded and sensitive riparian habitat of the Middle Creek without significant investment in trail building which would require scoping and approval from the US Forest Service. It's steep and full of jackstrawed deadfall and is not an 'enjoyable' recreation area for normal human beings. Elk Summer Range map: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (2022). The Town of Vail can and should proceed with rezoning this parcel immediately. There is no public benefit to making this action contingent on the actions of Vail Resorts - or their intentions for the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel this council has elected to condemn. There is no benefit to delaying action on this. Let's start this process now. Secure the unanimous recommendation of the Open Space Board of Trustees (comprised of the Town manager, one member from the Town Council and one member from the Planning and Environmental Commission) Council vote for an ordinance to rezone the open space. Call for a special election to allow Town of Vail voters to affirm the rezoning. Your unanimous support of this rezoning effort is essential to reaffirming this council's commitment to increasing the supply of residential housing. A unanimous vote would also help restore the public trust in this council's commitment to equity and inclusion. Residential housing is critical infrastructure that our community is sorely lacking. It is not charity. It May 17, 2022 - Page 49 of 549 is not a bargaining chip. It is not a political platform. We need to use all the tools and resources available to us to help alleviate the housing crisis. Rezoning West Middle Creek is an important step forward, and we need to keep moving forward. Thank you for your consideration. Robyn Smith West Vail Resident, Vail business owner, Vail homeowner, beneficiary of TOV residential housing, conservationist. References: WEST MIDDLE CREEK DEVELOPMENT Preliminary Feasibility Study and Analysis (2018): http://www.vailhomeowners.com/Middle_Creek_Site_Feasibility_Request_Vail_Town_Coun cil_9.13.yl%20121520pdf.pdf Town of Vail's Alternatives for Housing Correspondence to Vail Resorts (May 13th 2022): https://vail.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx? ItemID=17522&MeetingID=1426 -- Robyn Smith EMBUZI m:917.596.7618 w:embuzi.com e: robyn@embuzi.com May 17, 2022 - Page 50 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: West Middle Creek Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:12:00 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: mark gordon <markgordonvail@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:57 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: West Middle Creek Vail Town Council: As a resident and business owner within the Town of Vail, I’m writing to express my support for changing the zoning on the West Middle Creek parcel. I don’t need to speak about housing needs as that is something we all know about. Instead I’d like to write about what precedent this change would set for the Town. I know people are worried about changing the zoning from open space and how that will be perceived. I can assure you that this change will be perceived as a wise and smart move. It shows that this council was smart enough to look at the facts and not be swayed by emotion. Changing the zoning on a small portion of the land to accommodate much needed housing is the right thing to do and will be seen as such. Thank you for your consideration. May 17, 2022 - Page 51 of 549 Regards, Mark Mark Gordon CRS, C2EX, ABR, RSPS, GREEN Owner/Broker President, CO Residential Real Estate Council Christiania Realty, Inc. 356 Hanson Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 (970) 331-5821 Cell (888) 373-9940 Fax vailcoluxuryhomes.com May 17, 2022 - Page 52 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: West Middle Creek Parcel Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:12:14 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Matt Morgan <matt@sweetbasilvail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:52 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: West Middle Creek Parcel Hello Town Council, I understand that the West Middle Creek Parcel is under discussion for rezoning to potentially allow for housing on a portion of it sometime in the future. I continue to be an advocate for responsible housing projects in the Town of Vail whenever possible, as the lack of such housing continues to cripple our community and the ability of a viable work force to make Vail their home. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this particular parcel, but from what I have read, there are many positive aspects to this location that I would hope would be far less objectionable than the recent debate at the location in East Vail: Minimal area lost to open space with the majority of the parcel remaining designated as open space No immediate neighboring property owners that would be impacted Little to no additional impact on wildlife May 17, 2022 - Page 53 of 549 Feasibility study already in place that has determined the parcel to be developable. While no location will ever be perfect, this one seems to check most of the boxes. We have to be able to get to “yes’ on these responsible opportunities when they present themselves for the long term viability of our town. I’m sure an agreement can be reached to create a project on this site in the future that we can all be proud of, and I hope that you will come down in favor of this first step on the West Middle Creek Parcel. As always, thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Matt May 17, 2022 - Page 54 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: West Middle Creek Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:35:39 PM Attachments:image003.png image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Chris Romer <cromer@vailvalleypartnership.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:28 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: West Middle Creek On behalf of Vail Valley Partnership’s board of governors, representing 920 member organizations throughout the Eagle River Valley, we encourage you to support the rezoning of the West Middle Creek parcel. Given the current zoning of the parcel being both Open Space and General Use, through a subdivision of the parcel, the rezoning could be accomplished with very little net impact to the total amount of Open Space area “lost” to this rezoning. As you know, only a small portion of the total +/- 17 acre parcel is proposed for rezoning. The vast majority of the parcel will remain in the Open Space designation. Rezoning is the logical next step. Town Council has been strategic when originally voting to initiate the rezoning process as an outcome of the findings of the feasibility study. Further, the Town secured an access easement across a portion of the Middle Creek Village Apartments to the benefit of the West Middle Creek parcel. Now is the time to follow through and we encourage you to do so. May 17, 2022 - Page 55 of 549 Thank you, CR -- Connect with others on VVP Connect - our new online networking platform with community working groups, resource libraries, discussion threads and member profiles. -- Chris Romer, ACE, IOM President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership [D] 970.477.4016 | [O] 970.476.1000   97 Main Street, Ste. E-201, Edwards, CO 81632    Support. Unite. Lead.  VailValleyPartnership.com • VisitVailValley.com • VailValleyMeansBusiness.com Recognized as National Chamber of the Year in 2016 and 2020 May 17, 2022 - Page 56 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Proclamation No. 6, Series of 2022, Celebrating 40 Years of Eagle County P aramedic Services P RE S E NT E R(S ): J im B radford and W ill Dunn, E agle County P aramedics AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove P roclamation No. 6, S eries of 2022. B AC K G RO UND: E agle County P aramedic Services provides emergency medical response service to Eagle County and portions of Garfield County, Colorado; in addition to response to emergencies, Eagle County Paramedic S ervices has extensive critical care, search and rescue, wildland fire E MS and community paramedic programs as well as community health education functions and Eagle County Paramedic S ervices owns 14 ambulances housed in stations in Vail, Avon, Edwards, E agle and Gypsum and more than 80 employees work for the District in various roles and Eagle County Paramedic S ervices responded to almost 5500 calls in 2021 including 9- 1-1 calls and Community Paramedic calls. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Proclamation No. 6, Series 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 57 of 549 PROCLAMATION NO. 6 SERIES OF 2022 CELEBRATING 40 YEARS OF EAGLE COUNTY PARAMEDIC SERVICES WHEREAS, when Vail’s operation as a ski resort began in 1962, the only real medical care in Eagle County was provided by a doctor contracted for the winter months to provide medical care to skiers; ambulance service was still extremely primitive; WHEREAS, in 1967 a station wagon was purchased for use as an ambulance; in 1973 a new Chevy ambulance was purchased for approximately $8,500, in part with money from a charity golf tournament and proceeds from a New Year’s Eve Hospital Benefit in 1975 helped to purchase a larger and better equipped ambulance; WHEREAS, by 1976 the ambulance service was a department of the Vail Valley Medical Center and there was one full-time emergency medical technician with an office in a ski closet; prehospital emergency care was basic life support consisting of oxygen therapy, splinting, IV fluids and transport and by this time Vail had grown enough to warrant changes from its mostly volunteer service to that of a paid crew of three full-time and seven part-time EMTs; WHEREAS, in January 1978 the Colorado Emergency Medical Services Act empowered the state’s 63 boards of County Commissioners to adopt and enforce ambulance service licensing requirements and established the Colorado Department of Health as the lead agency for assisting the commissioners in their efforts; WHEREAS, by this period in the late 1970s, the local medical community supported advanced life support training and more full-time staff, enabling the service to become one of the first 24-hour paramedic services on the Western Slope; by 1980 the ambulance crew consisted of six members: three paramedics and three EMTs; WHEREAS, in the early 1980s, financial troubles arose for the hospital and a new entity for ambulance services was sought in order to preserve this essential service; a permanent solution was to establish an ambulance district in the eastern part of the county with a combination of property taxes and patient fees to fund the district; WHEREAS, on April 20, 1982, Eagle County voters chose to create the Eagle County Emergency Services Hospital District, also known as Eagle County Ambulance District; on June 1, 1982, the District became official and construction began in 1983 on the Vail ambulance station; WHEREAS, the District became a Health Service District in 1996 to continue the provision of advanced life support and have the ability to carry out additional health care objectives such as paratransport services; on Oct. 1, 2013, the Eagle County Ambulance District merged with the Western Eagle County Ambulance District. The new organization, Eagle County Paramedic Services, operates under the control of Eagle County Health Service District which serves as the governing body for the service; and WHEREAS, Eagle County Paramedic Services provides emergency medical response service to Eagle County and portions of Garfield County, Colorado; in addition to response to emergencies, Eagle County Paramedic Services has extensive critical care, search and rescue, wildland fire EMS and community paramedic programs as well as community health education May 17, 2022 - Page 58 of 549 functions and Eagle County Paramedic Services owns 14 ambulances housed in stations in Vail, Avon, Edwards, Eagle and Gypsum and more than 80 employees work for the District in various roles and Eagle County Paramedic Services responded to almost 5500 calls in 2021 including 9-1-1 calls and Community Paramedic calls. NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed, the Mayor and the Vail Town Council recognize the 40th Year Anniversary of Eagle County Paramedic Services, established in 1982, with a mission to provide skilled, professional and compassionate healthcare to our community, and acknowledge the Eagle County Paramedic Services' long tenure providing exceptional out-of- hospital care and ongoing promotion of overall health in the community, Therefore, the Mayor and Town Council extend their sincerest thanks and appreciation to all those who have been part of Eagle County Paramedic Services and its support of the Town of Vail’s vision “to be the premier international mountain resort community.” Dated this 17th day of May 2022. Vail Town Council Attest: Kim Langmaid, Mayor Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk ________________________ ___________________________ May 17, 2022 - Page 59 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Town of Vail S cholarship Program Recognitions P RE S E NT E R(S ): K im L angmaid, Mayor B AC K G RO UND: The Town of Vail has offered a financial scholarship program for Vail seniors who have achieved academic excellence and leadership success and commitment to the Vail community. T he scholarship is to help fund students who are pursuing their next chapter in life at either a college, university or technical school. T he 2022 award will be given to two senior students, Celia Barrie and A melia B levins. May 17, 2022 - Page 60 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Colorado Grand Scholarship Award Recognition P RE S E NT E R(S ): K im L angmaid, Mayor and E d O'B rien, Colorado Grand Representatives B AC K G RO UND: The Colorado Grand has offered an annual scholarship program to students attending local schools in E agle County. T he 2022 award will be given to a senior student who attends one of the local High Schools. E d O'B rien, representing Colorado Grand, will recognize the student and highlight the upcoming summer Colorado Grand program, an event that has been in Vail for over 30 years. May 17, 2022 - Page 61 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 26, S eries of 2022, a Resolution Approving an I ntergovernmental A greement between the Town of Vail and the U.S. Geological S urvey Concerning Stream Access for the Purpose of Water Chemistry and Temperature Monitoring B AC K G RO UND: The U.S . Geological Survey plans to undertake a study of surface water and groundwater interchange between Gore Creek and connected drinking water aquifers in Vail. I n order to complete the study, US G S scientists need to place long-term temperature and conductivity monitors in Gore Creek. T hey have requested to access 12 sites along Gore Creek through Town of Vail public stream tract. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 26, S eries of 2022 AT TAC H ME N TS: Description memo Resolution No. 26, Series of 2022 exhibit A May 17, 2022 - Page 62 of 549 To: Vail Town Council From: Environmental Department Date: May 17, 2022 Subject: Resolution No. 26, Series of 2022 - IGA with USGS for access to place and maintain stream monitoring equipment in Gore Creek I. SUMMARY The U.S. Geological Survey plans to undertake a study of surface water and groundwater interchange between Gore Creek and connected drinking water aquifers in Vail. In order to complete the study, USGS scientists need to place long-term temperature and conductivity monitors in Gore Creek. They have requested to access 12 sites along Gore Creek through Town of Vail public stream tract. Town staff recommends that the Town Council adopt Resolution No. XXXX Series 2022, a resolution to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the U.S. Geological Survey (ERWSD) in a form approved by the Town Attorney. II. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 26, Series of 2022 USGS IGA May 17, 2022 - Page 63 of 549 RESOLUTION NO. 26, Series of 2022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL AND THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONCERNING STREAM ACCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER CHEMISTRY AND TEMPERATURE MONITORING WHEREAS, the U.S. Geological Survey (the “USGS”) desires to install remote water chemistry monitoring devices on Gore Creek on Town of Vail property: and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to support such stream monitoring efforts, the Town and The parties wish to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement to Access Stream on Public Property, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference (the “IGA”). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the IGA in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, and in a form approved by the Town attorney, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the IGA on behalf of the Town. Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail held this 17th day of May 2022. __________________________ Kimberly Langmaid, Town Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 64 of 549 Agreement to access stream on public property The U.S. Geological Survey requires employees to obtain permission from landowners or municipalities in certain cases before entering onto private property or accessing streams and groundwater wells to conduct new surveys, scientific sampling, or measurements. Consequently, we are hereby requesting your approval to enter your land or access streams as described below. The USGS is conducting a study of groundwater/surface-water interactions within the Upper Colorado River Basin. As part of this study, we request permission to monitor groundwater wells, surface-water gaging stations, and to collect water-quality samples. This Agreement shall be regarded as granting a license or easement, whichever may most appropriately characterize it under applicable state law, in favor of USGS to access the well for the purposes noted herein. Specific information regarding this request is as follows: 1. Purpose of visits: 2. Typically, two or three USGS personnel, in a government truck or SUV, would be accessing your property for a minimal amount of time. A call-in advance can be done upon request. 3. Groundwater and surface-water monitoring, and water-quality sampling would be conducted between January 2022 and October 2024. 4. USGS personnel will limit their presence upon your property to the identified locations and agreed upon access routes to and from them. However, in the unlikely event that property damage does occur, you are entitled to file a claim to recover your damages (Federal Tort Claims Act). Data collected for this study will be available to the public from the USGS websites http://waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/ or, upon request, from: • Connor Newman, P.G., Hydrologist, USGS Colorado Water Science Center, Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25046, MS 415, Denver, CO 80225 (Email cpnewman@usgs.gov) Although data collected for this study will be available to the public, contact information for landowners will not be published or available to the public. Any questions can be directed to the hydrologist listed above. During the life of this agreement, the Federal Government will be liable for any loss related to the installation, operation, maintenance, and other activities associated with the gaging station described above in accordance with, and to the extent permitted under, the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. &&1346(b) and 2671 et seq). May 17, 2022 - Page 65 of 549 This agreement shall become effective when fully executed and shall remain in full force for 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) unless terminated earlier by USGS upon 60 days written notice. After 2 year(s) and 10 month(s), the agreement will continue in force until terminated by either the USGS or the landowner upon 60 days written notice to the other party. * For the purpose of this agreement, "gaging station" includes all stilling wells and structure, including cableways and equipment, used in the operation and maintenance of the monitoring site. *I attest that on the date listed the information within this letter was discussed with the below named landowner and that the USGS has been granted permission to enter their privately-owned property. May 17, 2022 - Page 66 of 549 Name of Landowner: City of Vail Address of Landowner: ________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Other contact information: Phone number(s): Email address: -------------------SITE INFORMATION------------------ Approximately 12 stream temperature monitoring sites located along Gore Creek. Access instructions from landowner: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Printed name and signature of USGS personnel Date Connor P. Newman Landowner signature Date YES NO Landowner verbal agreement Date May 17, 2022 - Page 67 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 27, S eries of 2022, a Resolution Adopting the P eer Resort E xchange Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Vail, Colorado and S t. Moritz, S witzerland B AC K G RO UND: The Town of Vail Town Council is interested in the activation of its peer resort exchange programs and relationships with other similar mountain resort communities to provide a platform that encourages the bilateral exchange of information, establishes cooperation and collaboration on relevant resort and community initiatives, and presents opportunities to exchange experiences related to the important topics of sustainability, tourism, economy, environment, and community. The resolution and agreements (and MO U) have been executed by S t. Moritz officials. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments, or deny Resolution No. 27, S eries of 2022 AT TAC H ME N TS: Description resolution no. 27, series 2022 Agreement MO U May 17, 2022 - Page 68 of 549 RESOLUTION NO. 27, SERIES OF 2022 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PEER REOSRT EXCHANGE AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AND ST. MORITZ, SWITZERLAND WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Town Council is interested in the activation of its peer resort exchange programs and relationships with other similar mountain resort communities to provide a platform that encourages the bilateral exchange of information, establishes cooperation and collaboration on relevant resort and community initiatives, and presents opportunities to exchange experiences related to the important topics of sustainability, tourism, economy, environment, and community. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1.The Town of Vail, Colorado and St. Moritz, Switzerland shall henceforth as mutually agree upon create an official peer resort exchange (aka sister city) relationship for the purpose of strengthening the friendship and developing collaborative activities related to education, culture, tourism, and environmental exchange programs. 2.To memorialize such cooperation and agreement the Town Council hereby approves and adopts the Peer Resort Exchange Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding attached hereto as Exhibit A, which both will go into effect upon the date of the execution by the Town of Vail Mayor and by the appropriate official of St. Moritz, Switzerland. 3.This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on this 17th day of May 2022. TOWN OF VAIL __________________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 69 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 70 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 71 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 72 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 73 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 74 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 75 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: L etter of S upport for the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (C O R E) A ct B AC K G RO UND: At the request of the Council, a letter of support for Mayor L angmaid's signature on behalf of the Vail Town Council is provided. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with modifications, the C O R E Act letter of support, and direct staff to forward to Colorado congressional representatives. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description C O R E Act Letter of Support May 17, 2022 - Page 76 of 549 May 17, 2022 U.S. Senator Michael Bennet 1244 Speer Boulevard Denver, CO. 80204 Dear Senator Bennet, The Town of Vail wishes to again formally express our strong support for the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act (CORE Act), passed by the US House of Representatives in February, 2021. We appreciate the leadership of the Colorado delegation to protect public lands in Colorado, and in particular the leadership of Senators Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, and Representative Joe Neguse for introducing this legislation. Our public lands support our communities’ quality of life and support our sustainable outdoor recreation driven economies. Continental Divide - In particular, we appreciate that the CORE Act carries forward protections that balance conservation and recreation that we have long supported in the Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Legacy Act. The bill would establish the Camp Hale National Historic Landscape, conferring well-deserved recognition on the Army’s 10th Mountain Division, which fought valiantly in World War II and was pivotal to the founding of Vail, the modern ski industry and the outdoor recreation industry. San Juans - In particular, we appreciate that the CORE Act carries forward protections that balance conservation and recreation that we have long supported in the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, which was introduced last Congress. Protections for the San Juan Mountains have enjoyed remarkably consistent and broad support, including all three counties where the lands are located, five major local municipalities, over 100 local businesses, and a wide array of affected stakeholders. These stakeholders include ranchers, sportsmen, private landowners, recreation groups, the area’s only operating mining company, and the region’s biggest ski resort. Thompson Divide - In particular, we appreciate that the CORE Act carries forward protections that balance conservation and recreation that we have long supported in the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act, which was introduced last Congress. The Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act has enjoyed consistent and broad support from local governments and diverse stakeholders for years. The bill has enjoyed support from Gunnison and Pitkin Counties, many local municipalities, and a wide array of local businesses and organizations. Individual supporters come from all walks of life and all political persuasions, and include ranchers, sportsmen, private landowners, recreation groups, small business owners, skiing companies, and many more. May 17, 2022 - Page 77 of 549 The four elements of the CORE Act are reflective of and accountable to the needs and interests of diverse stakeholders, with carefully drawn boundaries and thoughtful designations. We are appreciative that these proposed designations were locally developed to address existing and future recreation, wildlife habitat, wildfire management, agricultural and water supply needs. Millions of people visit the central mountains and western slope of Colorado each year, and our federal public lands contribute immeasurably to our economy and quality of life. In addition, we note that with the increasing threat of climate change and wildlife danger to our communities, the Town of Vail has invested in considerable wildfire mitigation planning and projects, and values the ability to continue to address these concerns in and around wilderness areas adjacent to our community. To that end, the town appreciates the accommodation in modifying the boundary of the proposed wilderness designation in the Spraddle Creek area to allow for fuels treatments close to 1-70 and the Wildland Urban Interface. We also support the new proposal for the Spraddle Creek Wildlife Conservation Area as an appropriate designation with the boundary exceeding the original wilderness boundary, and including larger buffers along some of the roads at both Spraddle Creek and Freemen Creek. The town notes that the ability to rapidly suppress wildland fires within the wildland urban interface should be unencumbered by any administrative rule-making associated with the Spraddle Creek Wildlife Conservation Area. Within this area, we also look forward to a smooth process of approvals for proactive projects is critical to maintain the safety of the town’s residents, visitors and property, as well as the recreational opportunities, watershed health and water quality, wildlife habitat and natural resources. We must have the vision to protect what is wilderness, create ongoing opportunities for sustainable recreation, and conserve wildlife habitat. We believe that the CORE Act strikes that balance. On behalf of the Vail Town Council, we hope that Colorado’s congressional delegation will prioritize passage of the CORE Act in the 117th Congress. Sincerely, Kim Langmaid, Mayor, on behalf of the Vail Town Council Vail, CO May 17, 2022 - Page 78 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Professional Services A greement for the J uly 4 Drone S how B AC K G RO UND: S taff presented a plan to Town Council in March 2022 to replace the traditional J uly 4 fireworks with a custom drone show. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Direct the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Verge A ero in an amount not to exceed $100,000, for the production of the J uly 4th Drone S how, on a form approved by the Town A ttorney. May 17, 2022 - Page 79 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Statewide P esticide A pplicator A ct B AC K G RO UND: The State Pesticide Applicator Act includes a preemption on local regulation of pesticides and landscaping chemicals. T he Gore Creek S trategic Plan identifies "P esticides, Herbicides, Fertilizers, and I nsecticides" among the primary causes of impairment in Gore Creek. I t would benefit the larger Restore the Gore effort if that local preemption were to be lifted and the Town were empowered to better regulate the use of landscaping chemicals within its jurisdiction. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove the comments drafted by the E nvironmental S ustainability Department. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description PesticideApplicator ActVailComments PesticideApplicator ActVailCover Letter May 17, 2022 - Page 80 of 549 I. Problem Defined: As it is currently written and enforced, the Pesticide Applicators Act does not adequately protect sensitive natural resources and wildlife from undue harm. • In Vail, Gore Creek has been listed as a 303d Impaired Waterway by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE) since 2012. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identified 11 “Pollutants of Primary Concern” on Gore Creek. Four of those pollutants are, “Pesticides, Fertilizers, Herbicides and Insecticides.” (GCSP, pgs. 29-30). II. Best Solution: State preemption on local government regulation and enforcement of pesticide regulations should be stricken from the law. • Local municipalities should be empowered to protect their citizens and sensitive ecosystems from harm. • Colorado is a state made up of many diverse ecosystems and communities. Local governments are best suited to understand vulnerabilities of their populations and sensitive ecosystems and tailor regulations to protect those communities and resources. III. Rationale: • The Pesticide Applicators Act does not adequately address protection of sensitive species and resources. • As it exists, the Pesticide Applicators Act has failed to adequately protect resources like Gore Creek from undue harm, resulting in regulatory consequences (303d listing by CDPHE) for the local community. • Pesticides and other landscaping chemicals can be harmful, especially when applied or handled improperly. At best, the Department of Agriculture is able to investigate an incident after it has happened. Local government officials and law enforcement agents who are on the scene when an incident occurs should be empowered to stop it as it is happening, thereby preventing further harm. The current law protects applicators from local oversight while exposing the local community and sensitive ecosystems to harm by restricting what actions local authorities may take. A spill or an incident of overspray should be considered an urgent source of harm that needs to be immediately stopped, not simply an infraction to be investigated a day or more after it has occurred. • Enforcement authority lies solely with the Department of Agriculture which has failed to adequately enforce pesticide regulations statewide. For example, there has been only one instance of enforcement in Eagle County since 2016. A review of the Department of Agriculture’s reporting of pesticide enforcement shows that enforcement is highly concentrated on the Front Range, indicating that regulations are not uniformly applied across the state. https://ag.colorado.gov/plants/pesticides May 17, 2022 - Page 81 of 549 IV. Alternative Solutions: A. Solution 1: Incorporate an exemption which allows local governments to regulate pesticides for the benefit of sensitive ecosystems into the Pesticide Applicators Act. B. Solution 2: Empower a state agency other than the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which has a mandate to protect human health and ecosystems (such as CDPHE), to enforce pesticide regulations in place of the Dept. of Agriculture. V. Counterarguments and Refutations: Defenders of preemption argue that elimination of preemption on local control would lead to a patchwork of regulations across the state that would be difficult for applicators to navigate. As was mentioned above, the Department of Agriculture focuses enforcement on the Front Range so the law today is not applied uniformly statewide. It is also incumbent on defenders of preemption to demonstrate why this industry needs an additional level of protection from local regulation that does not apply to other industries. This law should seek primarily to protect the public and the public interest. Instead, it protects an industry which applies potentially dangerous substances from oversite and regulation by the local jurisdictions impacted by those chemicals. VI. Evidence of the Problem • The Pesticide Applicators Act has failed to adequately protect sensitive ecosystems and wildlife. Gore Creek is a 303d impaired waterway, in part, because of the overuse and misuse of landscaping chemicals in Vail. https://lovevail.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/gore-creek-strategic-plan.pdf • The Department of Agriculture fails to enforce pesticide regulation uniformly across the state. Enforcement is concentrated in regions near the Dept. Of Agriculture office. https://ag.colorado.gov/plants/pesticides • Education is not enough to address overuse and misuse of pesticides. Vail has documented an increase foliar application of pesticides among private property owners in town. In 2007, 34 percent of surveyed homeowners reported “spraying trees with chemicals.” In 2018, that number had jumped to 49%. (Page 11, Figure 10) https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/70377/Vail- CommunitySurveyReport.pdf?sequence=11&isAllowed=y May 17, 2022 - Page 82 of 549 May 17, 2022 Dear Vivienne Belmont, Please accept the attached comments from the Town of Vail regarding the pending sunset review of the Colorado State Pesticide Applicators Act. While the Town of Vail recognizes the importance of pesticides and herbicides in the control of invasive and deleterious species in Colorado, the Vail Town Council believes that the Act as it is currently written and enforced has failed to adequately protect human health and public interests, including cherished ecosystems, in Vail. Gore Creek is a 303(d) listed impaired waterway, in part, due to the overuse and misuse of landscaping and pest-control chemicals. Despite a decade of education and outreach to property owners, landscape professionals, and pesticide applicators in Vail, Gore Creek macroinvertebrate populations remain degraded. Please recommend the legislature make changes to the Act to empower local governments like the Town of Vail to take action to protect human health and sensitive ecosystems from exposure to potentially harmful chemicals within their jurisdictions. Sincerely, Mayor Kimberly Langmaid on behalf of the Vail Town Council May 17, 2022 - Page 83 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Contract Award to Gillig B attery to Replace the E lectric Buses B AC K G RO UND: The TO V owns and operates 33 transit buses, the buses are on a 12 year replacement plan, which is consistent with F TA requirements that a transit bus be designed and operate for a minimum of 12 years. T he manufacturer is stating that current order build dates are out to 2024 due to supply chain issues that are affecting everyone. T he bus replacement plan has six buses to be replaced in 2023 that will be battery electric. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A uthorize the town manager to enter into a contract a form approved by the Town A ttorney to purchase 6 Gillig B attery Electric B uses in the amount not to exceed $5,514,450. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff memo May 17, 2022 - Page 84 of 549 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Public Works Department DATE: May 17th, 2022 SUBJECT: Award contract to Replace Transit Buses I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to request approval from the Town Council to purchase up to 6 buses per the bus replacement plan, the TOV currently operates with 33 transit buses. II. BACKGROUND The TOV owns and operates 33 transit buses, the buses are on a 12 year replacement plan, which is consistent with FTA requirements that a transit bus be designed and operate for a minimum of 12 years. The current fleet of buses is: (4)2020 Gillig Lowfloor 42’ electric buses (8) 2017 Gillig Lowfloor 40’ buses (7) 2018 Gillig Lowfloor 40’ buses (6) 2020 Gillig Lowfloor 40’ buses (2) 2012 Gillig Lowfloor 40’ hybrid buses (6)2011 Gillig Lowfloor 40’ buses The manufacturer is stating that current order build dates are out to 2024 due to supply chain issues that are affecting everyone. The bus replacement plan has six buses to be replaced in 2023 that will be battery electric. Our team would recommend that we purchase Gillig battery electric buses. This will allow the Town to keep driver options the same and have the bus drive very similar to what are drivers are used to. Also most of our spare parts inventory will transfer over to these new buses keeping inventory costs down. Gillig is using Cummins for their electric drive system. This means we will have support on this new technology in Denver and Grand Junction. The other bus manufacturers are either over seas or across the country. The Town already has a strong relationship with Cummins as 95% of our current diesel engines are Cummins. III. Vendor Selection The budget for this project is $6,000,000 in 2023. The Town is utilizing pricing based on a joint procurement plan with FTA approved State of Florida contract. The price of each bus, based on the State of Florida contract with adjustments made to meet TOV requirements is $919,075. For six buses the total would be $5,514,450.00. We would like to use the remaining $485,550.00 for the bus charges required to operate these buses. We would like to put a place holder on these charger funds and present to Council at a later date for approval. The Town has secured a grant of up to May 17, 2022 - Page 85 of 549 2 $2,064,548 for the purchase of 4 battery electric buses and $257,728 for four chargers from state VW settlement funds, and $1,650,000 million for two buses and two charges through the Congressional Directed Spending process in the 2022 federal budget authorization bill. IV. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the proposal, and order six Gillig Lowfloor 42’ battery electric buses this year to take delivery in 2024 in an amount not to exceed $5,514,450.00 These funds are in the 5 year capital plan in 2022. May 17, 2022 - Page 86 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Town of Vail's Alternatives for Housing Correspondence to Vail Resorts AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Proposed Letter of Action May 17, 2022 - Page 87 of 549 1 ________________________________________________________________________________ May 13, 2022 Vail Resorts Development Company Attn: Bill Rock, Executive Vice President 390 Interlocken Crescent Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Dear Bill, The Vail Town Council is committed to collaborating with Vail Resorts in pursuit of incremental new housing solutions and achieving environmental stewardship goals. The purpose of this letter is to request that you reach out to discuss Vail Resorts’ interest in partnering with the Town of Vail on a number of actions aimed at increasing the supply of deed-restricted homes in Vail. The Vail Town Council unanimously supports these actions and is committed to collaborating with Vail Resorts. Under the circumstances, however, time is of the essence. With this in mind, in order of immediacy, the Vail Town Council presents the following actions in hopes of Vail Resorts engaging with the Town as a participating partner in their completion. Admittedly, not all the details have been resolved, nor can they be without further engagement by Vail Resorts. The Vail Town Council is seeking your support, mutual acceptance, and partnership in pursuit of the following: PROPOSED ACTIONS ACTION #1 – Master Lease or Own Homes in the Residence at Main Vail The construction of the 72 new for-rent apartments at the Residences at Main Vail is underway and on schedule for completion by September 1, 2023. The Town of Vail will explore the implications of restructuring the financing of the Residences at Main Vail to allow for master leasing or ownership opportunities for Vail Resorts of a minimum of 144 beds on terms equal to those terms previously contemplated at Booth Heights. The Town will complete the exploratory work by July 1, 2022. This is the most immediate action and results in 72 new homes by September 1, 2023. May 17, 2022 - Page 88 of 549 2 ACTION #2 – Public/Private Partnership for the development of the West Middle Creek Parcel The Town of Vail is prepared to submit an application to rezone the West Middle Creek parcel to the Housing (H) District. Given the existing zoning in place on the +/- 17-acre site, an opportunity exists to rezone the parcel with little to no impact to the total amount of area currently zoned for open space. This action creates an opportunity to develop incremental new homes for year-round and seasonal Vail residents. While not yet finalized, the number of homes is dependent upon site design, density, building height, home sizes, parking, product type, etc. The rezoning process is to begin immediately and will be completed by September 1, 2022. The Town of Vail is open to discussions including granting ownership and/or master lease options for all, or a portion of the new homes constructed on the West Middle Creek parcel to Vail Resorts, subject to terms. With Vail Resorts’ acceptance, the Town of Vail is also agreeable to engage with Vail Resorts as a co- applicant and financial partner in the development review process. This action could result in 200 or more beds for the exclusive benefit of Vail Resorts. ACTION #3 – Trade Booth Heights parcel for West Middle Creek Parcel Trade the title to the Booth Heights parcel to the Town of Vail in exchange for Vail Resorts gaining incremental new housing opportunities at West Middle Creek parcel and/or the Residences at Main Vail. The Town of Vail understands additional financial consideration may be necessary to justify the transfer. The amount of additional financial consideration would be determined by real estate appraisals. This action results in the protection and preservation of 23 acres of bighorn sheep habitat and housing for Vail Resorts and the greater Vail community and casts the most positive light on our collaboration. ACTION #4 – AMENDMENT TO LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN The Town of Vail is agreeable to collaborating with Vail Resorts on an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan for the EverVail site to ensure the future development of incremental new deed-restricted housing, realignment of the South Frontage Road, an increase in hotel and short-term lodging beds, enhanced retail vibrancy, improved on-mountain access, more efficient ski mountain maintenance facilities, and other critical Vail Resorts’ and community needs. This action will result in a significant number of deed-restricted homes (TBD) and provides additional benefits to Vail Resorts and the Vail community. ACTION #5 - TIMBER RIDGE VILLAGE APARTMENTS REDEVELOPMENT This action is underway. The Timber Ridge Village Apartments redevelopment will include a minimum of 200 new, deed-restricted homes. May 17, 2022 - Page 89 of 549 3 The Town of Vail will complete an updated market study, design development, and entitlement approval process to redevelop Timber Ridge Village Apartments by August 1, 2023. Construction is expected to begin September 1, 2023. The new Timber Ridge Village Apartments are to be completed and available for phased occupancy from February 1, 2025 through April 1, 2025. This action results in more than 100 incremental new deed-restricted homes adding to the supply of homes for the Vail community. ACTION #6 – TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SITE The first phase of the Public Works site redevelopment has been completed. A pending phase of redevelopment includes the construction of new deed-restricted homes. While many of these homes are intended to meet the housing needs of the Town of Vail municipal workforce, a substantial number will remain available to support the housing needs of the Vail community, including leasing to Vail employers. This action results in the construction of approximately 120 incremental new homes adding to the supply of homes for the Vail community. CONCLUSION The actions above are projected to result in approximately 475 - 525 new homes dedicated to year- round and seasonal Vail residents. With the support of Vail Resorts, these actions will represent the largest increase in the total supply of resident-occupied homes in any five-year period in Vail’s history. Not since its investment in First Chair will Vail Resorts realize such a significant increase in homes for its valued workforce. Again, upon receipt of this letter, please reach out to schedule a meeting to discuss Vail Resorts’ interest in partnering with the Town of Vail in these incremental new housing actions. Sincerely, Kim Langmaid, Mayor Town of Vail Cc: Stan Zemler, Town Manager George Ruther, Housing Director May 17, 2022 - Page 90 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 24, S eries of 2022, a Resolution of the Vail Town Council Making Findings on the A ppeal of D R B 22-0035, Concerning a Residential P roject L ocated at 3070 B ooth Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado and upholding the Decision of the Design Review Board, with a Modified Condition of A pproval P RE S E NT E R(S ): Matt Mire, Town Attorney AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022. B AC K G RO UND: On May 3, 2022, the Town Council held a properly-noticed hearing on the appeal, and the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to present evidence in support of its appeal. F ollowing the hearing, the Town Council directed the Town A ttorney to prepare a Resolution with written findings regarding the appeal. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 91 of 549 Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022 RESOLUTION NO. 24 SERIES 2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS ON THE APPEAL OF DRB22-0035, CONCERNING A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 3070 BOOTH CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, WITH A MODIFIED CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Reggie D. Delponte Residence Trust 1 & 2 (the "Applicant") is the owner of the real property located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive, Vail, CO, more particularly described as Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village Filing No. 11, Vail, CO (the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant requested Design Review Board ("DRB") approval of an addition to the residence on the Property, in case #DRB22-0035 (the "Application"); WHEREAS, on March 2, 2022, the DRB approved the Application with one condition of approval; WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Applicant filed an appeal of the DRB's condition of approval, which appeal is governed by § 12-3-3 of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, the Town Council held a properly noticed hearing on the appeal, and the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to present evidence in support of its appeal; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Town Council directed the Town Attorney to prepare a Resolution with written findings regarding the appeal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: Section 1. Findings. Having heard and considered evidence presented by the Applicant and Town staff and any comments from the public regarding the Application, the Town Council hereby finds and determines as follows: a. The Applicant and its predecessor in interest in the Property have installed and/or maintained numerous encroachments within the stream tract for Gore Creek within the utility easement within Tract C of Vail Village Filing No.11, which utility easement is adjacent to the Property. Such encroachments include a patio, flagstone, decorative planters, benches, patio furniture, turf grass, sod and in-ground irrigation infrastructure. b. Such encroachments constitute a violation of Vail Town Code § 5-14-4. Applicant has been repeatedly notified of this violation but has refused to remove the encroachments voluntarily. c. Such encroachments have caused and continue to cause irreparable damage to the stream tract for Gore Creek. May 17, 2022 - Page 92 of 549 Resolution No. 24, Series of 2022 d. Removal of such encroachments will prevent further damage to the stream tract for Gore Creek. e. The public health, safety and welfare will be served by removal of such encroachments and the prevention of further damage to Gore Creek. f. The requirement that the Applicant remove such encroachments is a reasonable, non-discretionary condition of approval, and is directly related to the Application, because the encroachments specifically benefit the Property and the improvements proposed in the Application. Section 2. Decision. Based on the foregoing findings, the Town Council hereby upholds the DRB's decision in DRB22-0035 to approve the Application but modifies the condition of approval. The modified condition of approval is as follows: Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, the Applicant shall correct all violations of Chapter 14 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code that exist within the utility easement within that portion of Tract C, Vail Village Filing No. 11 that is adjacent to the Property. Specifically, the Applicant shall, at the Applicant's sole cost and expense, remove all encroachments, as defined by Vail Town Code § 5-14-2, from the utility easement within Tract C adjacent to the Property. The encroachments that must be removed include a patio, flagstone, decorative planters, benches, patio furniture, turf grass, sod and in-ground irrigation infrastructure. The Town will not accept an application for a building permit until such removal has occurred and the Town has conducted an inspection of the Property to confirm such removal. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th day of May, 2022. ______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 93 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 7, S eries of 2022, F irst Reading, an Ordinance Amending Title 12 and Title 14 of the Vail Town Code to Amend the Regulations for Building Design and L andscaping in the W ildland Urban I nterface to Reduce the Risk of W ildfire P RE S E NT E R(S ): P aul Cada, W ildland Fire and J onathan Spence, P lanning Manager AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: T he Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, upon first reading. B AC K G RO UND: The Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) heard this application on February 14th, 2022. The P E C had concerns on removing the minimum 500 square feet exemption and voted (7-0) to recommend approval with the condition that the exemption relating to additions under 500 square feet in S ection 12-11-3 remain. At the May 3rd Town Council meeting, during the review of the building code update, Council indicated they were in support of removing this exemption and the Ordinance has been amended accordingly. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: T he P lanning and E nvironmental Commission recommend approval, on first reading, of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description First Reading of Ordinance No. 7 Staff Memo Attachment A. Applicant Narrative 5-17-2022 Attachment B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 Attachment C. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 94 of 549 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: First reading of an Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code 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 for building design and landscaping the wildland 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 I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, is requesting a first reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code amend the regulations for building design and landscaping the wildland urban interface to reduce the risk of wildfire. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, upon first reading. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Applicant is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend sections of Town Code related to wildfire preparedness. The proposed changes are to sections of Town Code that were all amended in 2019 as part of the last round of Wildland Urban Interface (“WUI”) regulations. The intent of this update is to include reskinning projects that currently are not required to comply with WUI regulations. The revisions would also clarify the definition of roofs when applying the regulations to a mansard roof, so that all parts of the mansard roof must meet the regulations. This ordinance also includes language to remove the minimum size of an addition that would qualify to require compliance with the WUI regulations. Currently, additions that are under 500 square feet do not need to comply with WUI-rated building materials. May 17, 2022 - Page 95 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 IV. BACKGROUND The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) heard this application on February 14th, 2022. The PEC had concerns on removing the minimum 500 square feet exemption and voted (7-0) to recommend approval with the condition that the exemption relating to additions under 500 square feet in Section 12-11-3 remain. At the May 3rd Town Council meeting with the review of the building code update, Council indicated they were in support of removing this exemption and the Ordinance reflects that direction. V. 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 creation of defensible space. These regulations are designed to require compliance for new construction and will remove the exemptions for small additions of less than 500 square feet of gross floor area and reskins of the exterior of structures. It will allow for repairs of less than 25% of an exterior of a structure without full compliance, similar to the provisions for deck repairs. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 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 has already passed 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 the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. May 17, 2022 - Page 96 of 549 Town of Vail Page 3 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 Conditions have progressed 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 increased 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 the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 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 all additions. 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 the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 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. VI. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, upon first reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council pass the following motion: "The Vail Town Council approves, on first reading, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 14, Zoning Regulations, 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. (PEC22- 0002)” May 17, 2022 - Page 97 of 549 Town of Vail Page 4 Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council makes the following findings: “Based upon a review of Section VII of the February 14, 2022 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant Narrative, 5-17-2022 B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 C. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 98 of 549 To: Town Council From: Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager Date: May 17, 2022 Subject: Proposed Amendments to Code for Reduction of Wildfire Hazards I. Background The wildfire situation in the Western US is continuing to grow worse, fueled by climate change, community development and excessive fuel loading. Contemporary scientific studies have pointed to expanded risks to higher elevation communities such as Vail. Since 2001 fires above 8000ft in elevation have nearly tripled in frequency and acres burned. Another study pointed to a near doubling of moderate and high intensity fires during that same period leading to significantly higher damage to ecosystems and the communities that are built within them. This intensification of wildfire events has also led to a steep increase in impacts on communities throughout Colorado and the west. Fires such as December’s Marshall Fire, burning in areas previously not thought of as “at risk” from wildfires are sustaining significant loss. These losses have led to a growing body of research on what is causing both individual and community losses from wildfire. Two studies released in late 2021 point to spatial arrangement of homes (distance between homes) and home hardening and fuels modification in the home ignition zone (within 100 feet of the building) as the two greatest predictors of home survivability. Homes that have been hardened and have good defensible space are statistically much more likely to survive, however this protection is significantly diminished if nearby structures (less than 30 feet separation) catch fire. In 2019 Vail Town Council voted to amend Title 10, 12 and 14 of the town code to incorporate best practices for the use of ignition resistant building materials and landscaping in new projects. These amendments were implemented in the spring of 2020 and have been incorporated into all new construction and significant additions since that point. While significant, these code amendments are only applicable to a relatively small portion of projects within the town. At the current pace it would take an estimated 50 years for the current code to apply to all structures within the community. At the June 1st, 2021 Vail Town Council meeting Vail Fire presented a strategy to accelerate implementation of the Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), measurably reducing wildfire risk to the entire community. During this meeting Vail May 17, 2022 - Page 99 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 Town Council conceptually supported amending codes to increase protection of homes built within the Wildland Urban Interface. II. Current Situation The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) code amendments incorporated into Title 10, 12 and Title 14 define applicability and specific building code requirements to conform with the adopted code. These titles reference each other with respect to scope of the code requirements. At the May 3rd Vail Town Council was presented with Ordinance 8 which includes amendments to Title 10 relating to the WUI code. Vail Town Council voted to follow staff recommendations in adoption of code amendments including the removal of an exemption for additions of less than 500 square feet in size. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 presented today is complementary to Ordinance 8 and amends Title 14 in alignment with changes made to Title 10. Vail Fire proposes that the Town of Vail adopt additional amendments to Title 10 and Title 14 of the municipal code to expand the effectiveness of the codes. These amendments: 1. Eliminate existing exemption for additions of less than 500 square feet (Title 10, Section 7A01.1 and Title 12 Chapter 11-3) 2. Require projects repairing or replacing 26% or more of a structures exterior siding to comply with ignition resistant materials standards (Title 10, Section 7A01.1 and 14-10-5 B 4) 3. Expand ignition resistant landscape standards to all landscaping within the defined limits of construction related disturbance (14-10-3 D) 4. Define all portions of a mansard roof as “roof” and therefore shall be treated as a roof and subject to the requirement for class A roofing materials (14-10-5 G) These code amendments were presented to the Building and Fire Appeals Board (BFCAB) at their meeting on 12/8/2021. The BFCAB did not have significant concerns over the proposed amendments, citing that most projects were already compliant with the proposal. On January 19th, 2022 the Design Review Board (DRB) was presented the same information. The DRB similarly did not have any major concerns regarding the proposed code amendments to Title 14. At the February 14th, 2022 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting a similar presentation was made. PEC heard the information presented and engaged in conversation regarding the implications of the proposed code amendments. PEC voted to recommend adoption of all code amendments except for the removal of the existing exemption for additions less than 500 square feet. PEC felt that removing this exemption would put excess burden on projects that were only adding a small addition. During the meeting staff from both the Fire Department and Community Development staff highlighted that most projects today are already meeting the requirements of the proposed code amendments and that these code amendments add very little to no additional costs to the overall projects. Additionally, these changes would make it easier to understand code requirements for proposed projects in Vail. Under the existing and May 17, 2022 - Page 100 of 549 Town of Vail Page 3 proposed code, the only the portion of a structure that is being added or changed needs to meet the adopted WUI code. Staff recommends that Town Council accept the staff recommendation that the 500 square foot exemption be eliminated. At the May 3rd, 2022 Town Council meeting council voted to approved staff recommendations of removing the exemption for additions of less than 500 square feet. The codes as presented in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 are consistent with Ordinance 8 as amended by Town Council. III. Staff Recommendation Approve the following amendments to Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2022 Title 14 Section 10-3 and 10-5 May 17, 2022 - Page 101 of 549 1 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\PEC22-0002\WUI-O022522.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 7 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 12 AND 14 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING IN THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE TO REDUCE THE RISK OF WILDFIRE WHEREAS, each year wildfires continue to grow more destructive and impactful to communities across Colorado; WHEREAS, the Town is built in an environment that depends on wildfire to maintain a healthy ecosystem, and is therefore at high risk of encountering wildfires at any given time; and WHEREAS, a wildland-urban interface (“WUI”) code is specifically designed to mitigate the risks from wildfire to life and property by regulation construction materials and methods in sch a way as to resist ignition from wildfires for a safer and more resilient community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-11-3(C)(5) of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 14-10-3 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 14-10-3: SITE PLANNING: 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 102 of 549 2 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\PEC22-0002\WUI-O022522.DOCX D. All areas disturbed during construction shall be revegetated. Replacement of disturbed soils and vegetation All landscaping within the identified limits of disturbance shall comply with Section 14-10-8 of this Code. 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.. Section 3. Section 14-10-5 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN: 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 structures 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 required, unless otherwise exempted by Section 12-11-3 of 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 is 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. 1. 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, if 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; b. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and May 17, 2022 - Page 103 of 549 3 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\PEC22-0002\WUI-O022522.DOCX c. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town. 2. This subsection 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, unless otherwise exempt by Section 12-11-3(C)(5) of this Code. Buildings or structures moved into or within the Town of Vail shall comply with the provisions of this Code for new buildings and structures. 3. Repair or replacement of twenty-five percent (25%) or less of a deck surface or support structure is exempt from the ignition-resistant requirements of this subsection Paragraph B. 4. Repair or replacement of twenty-five percent (25%) or less of a building’s exterior siding is exempt from the ignition-resistant requirements of this subsection B. 4.5. Combustible siding, as defined in the Town's adopted building code codes, may be used as long as it does not cover more than thirty- three percent (33%) of a given wall (excluding windows, doors and other openings) and may not be within five (5) feet of the ground level. Combustible siding with 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 shall 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 the Town 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 104 of 549 4 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\PEC22-0002\WUI-O022522.DOCX 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 Town's 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 without limitation, 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. For purposes of this subsection G, all parts of a mansard roof are considered “roof” and shall comply with current roofing regulations. The use of wood Wood shake, wood shingles and rolled roofing are prohibited shall not be permitted. Two-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings shall be required to have uniform roof covering materials, unless 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. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 105 of 549 5 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\PEC22-0002\WUI-O022522.DOCX INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this ____ day of ____________, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ___ day of ____________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ____ day of ________________, 2022. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 106 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N F ebruary 14, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w 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, J enn Bruno, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt Absent: None 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 15 min. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Peter W adden, the Watershed Education Coordinator begins presentation. He reviews the changes made to the proposal since J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 107 of 549 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. I nsurance 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 (P E C) 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 108 of 549 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 P E C forwards. I t 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-W ater Mark (OHW M) and the Two Year Floodline (TY F L). 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 TY FL 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. W hen 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 TY F L. 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 109 of 549 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 TY FL. 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. W hat 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 P E C not staff would have the final review. Perez says she is uncomfortable that there are not currently criteria for the P E C review. W hat are their review criteria? Gillette brings up an example. I f 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 P E C. 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 110 of 549 methodology. Gillette asks what is a shapefile? Wadden says it is a GI S file that shows location of the lines in question. Spence says it allows staff to update the map layer. Gillette asks if the GI S 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. I n 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. W hy 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 111 of 549 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. W hat 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 112 of 549 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 W illow 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 J ohnson represents the Grand Hyatt Vail. He says last time there was a consensus to have the ordinance take effect J an. 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. I t’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. I f we’re flexible why are we concerned about changing the time outlined in the code for the May 17, 2022 - Page 113 of 549 restoration process. He references the Matterhorn I nn. 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. I t has been identified that the F E MA mapping is off vertically by 4’ on Middle Creek. Should there be a provision that deals with errors in the mapping of the TY FL? Gillette says those errors can be addressed through the appeals process. Spence says over time the layers will get better and better. D M 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. J on 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. I f 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 J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 114 of 549 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. I f we want to guarantee a win for the creek, the only way to do that is to start with this baseline. I f 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 P E C. Gillette says staff can verify applicants used the proper procedures. Phillips says the less restrictive measure is a treacherous road to go down.. W hy 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 P E C. The whole idea was to have a public process that allows property owners to make their case. I t’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. May 17, 2022 - Page 115 of 549 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 TY F L may be in the wrong area. I t 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 J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 116 of 549 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 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 I nterface to reduce the risk of wildfire and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0002) 30 min. 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. W hy 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. W ill a 250 square foot addition make a difference? Often it includes other things. W hat May 17, 2022 - Page 117 of 549 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. I gnition 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. I t’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 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. (P E C22- 0001) The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 14, 2022 P E C Meeting. 2 min. May 17, 2022 - Page 118 of 549 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 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 existing 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. (P E C21-0059) This item will be renoticed for a later date. 2 min. Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau Planner:J onathan Spence 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.J anuary 24, 2022 P E C 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 inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 119 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 120 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 11, S eries of 2022, F irst Reading, an Ordinance Replacing Chapter 14 of Title 4 of the Vail Town Code to Update S hort-Term Rental Regulations and L icense Requirements P RE S E NT E R(S ): K athleen Halloran, Director of Finance and A lex J akubiec, Revenue Manager AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove or approve with amendments First Reading Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 B AC K G RO UND: B ased on f eedback received during the short-term rental (S T R ) study presented at the J anuary 17, February 15, March 15, and A pril 5, 2022, Vail Town Council meetings the attached Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 is presented for consideration. At the last meeting, Council supported an increase in penalties f or violations, requirements f or increased insurance, fire saf ety inspections and an increase in license f ees to cover administration costs. Council also supported a per-bedroom fee to fund housing initiatives, but a fee amount was not yet determined. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove or approve with amendments First Reading Ordinance No. 11, S eries 2022 AT TAC H ME N TS: Description 220517 Ordinance 11, Series 2022 220517 Ordinance 11, Series 2022 P P Public Comment May 17, 2022 - Page 121 of 549 __________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum TO: Town Council FROM: Finance Department DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2022, an ordinance repealing and updating Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2018, providing for adjustments to regulations and fees for Short-Term Rental properties within the Town of Vail. I. SUMMARY Based on feedback received during the short-term rental (STR) study presented at the January 17, February 15, March 15, and April 5, 2022, Vail Town Council meetings the attached Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022 is presented for consideration. At the last meeting, Council supported an increase in penalties for violations, requirements for increased insurance, fire safety inspections and an increase in license fees to cover administration costs. The main question remaining for Council is to consider a “per-bedroom fee” intended to deter property owners from converting their units to short-term rentals and at the same time raise revenues for the purpose of lessening the influence of STRS on locals housing. All funds raised by a per-bedroom fee would be allocated to the town’s Housing Fund and used for housing programs, initiatives, and developments. A per-bedroom fee is not intended to solve the town’s housing problems, however will offer funding support to compliment the town’s current efforts. The Town of Vail continues to address community housing needs in a variety of ways, with funding by the town’s Capital Projects Fund. 2017 $4.3M Chamonix infrastructure subsidy 2019 $4.0M for the purchase of deed restrictions at the Solar Vail project 2019 $ 0.6M for purchase of deed restrictions at 6 West in Edwards 2017–2021 $4.3M in the purchase of individual units 2018–2021 $7.3M in InDEED deed restrictions from 2018 to 2021. 5-year total: $20.5M Over the past five years, the town has invested $20.5M in housing programs and developments, not including the construction of 72 new units at The Residences at Main Vail. This significant commitment to housing for locals was supported by voters in November, 2021 with the approval of a new 0.5% sales tax that will generate approximately $4.5M per year. The town is pursuing numerous opportunities to create more housing, such as a redevelopment of Timber Ridge, potential development on CDOT property, and a State Land Board parcel in Eagle-Vail, among others. May 17, 2022 - Page 122 of 549 II. BACKGROUND Purpose of the 2021/2022 STR Study: On July 6th 2021, staff presented background history and data on the town’s short-term rental regulations and activity. During that presentation, Town Council expressed concern that the town is experiencing a severe shortage of housing for the local workforce and directed staff to bring back an emergency ordinance to suspend new STR registrations. On July 20, 2021 an emergency ordinance was presented to Town Council but after hearing concerns from citizens and local businesses the ordinance was not passed. At the direction of Town Council, staff contracted with RRC Associates and Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (EPS) in September of 2021 to conduct a study in order to better understand the town’s short-term rental (STR) inventory and its impacts on the community. Conclusions of the Short-Term Rental Study Throughout the short-term rental study, a considerable amount of data and analysis was presented on short-term rental activity in the Town of Vail. To summarize, the study reviewed current regulations, real estate market impacts, peer community approaches to regulation, and the granular location densities and inventory composition of the registered STR properties throughout town. Below is a summary of key findings from the study:  31% of residential parcels were registered as STRs (a total of 2,454 units)  18% of units in Zone 2 were registered as an STR in 2021 with new registrations in Zone 2 occurring at a higher rate since January 2020 than in prior years  138 of the 410 properties sold (one-third) during 2021 were registered as an STR before the sale, after the sale or both  Vacant homes and those used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional uses represent 69% of the town’s housing stock according to census data; this did not change significantly between 2010 and 2019  Saturation of STRs in business license Zone 2 is significantly lower than the overall rate of 32%. When adjusted for STRs located in developments with 24/7 onsite management, the saturation rate is at or below 20% in these areas  Data suggests that though the full-time resident population in Vail has increased, the population of locals aged 18-34 has declined  The number of owner-occupied housing units increased from 2010 to 2019, while the number of long-term rentals decreased resulting in a net loss of 162 local occupied rental housing units May 17, 2022 - Page 123 of 549 III. DISCUSSION The study has presented the challenges that come with managing STR activity while trying to address local housing availability. In the attached ordinance, several updates to the existing STR regulations are presented based on the feedback of the council. These are discussed in- depth here. Transition to STR Licenses To increase requirements for obtaining the right to short-term rent a residential property in the Town of Vail, it is also recommended that the Town transition from a STR registration to a STR license requirement. A license is a legal document that gives official permission to engage in the act of short-term property rental. Existing requirements do not include being granted official permission, merely to register the STR property with the Town. Changing the requirement will allow for;  Enhanced enforcement of STR regulations  Enhanced enforcement of STR penalties  Greater staff oversight of STR activity in the Town  Ability to require additional proposed STR Fire Safety Inspections and Insurance requirements Increased Penalties and Fines During the STR study presentation, Council has expressed concern over STR properties impacting neighborhood character and community standards. It was questioned whether our current STR enforcement structure is adequate to mitigate these problems. Currently, the town’s STR violation structure has four levels, with the fourth being a revocation of the STR registration for two years. Staff recommends changing this policy by reducing the maximum number of violations from four to three, increasing the fine amounts for each level, and increasing the revocation period from two to three years. Additionally, staff suggests imposing a significant fine of $2,670, the maximum allowed penalty under code, for any STR found operating without a valid registration. The purpose of this would be to dissuade non-compliance from unregistered units. Below is a summary of the recommended violation and fine structure: May 17, 2022 - Page 124 of 549 Health and Life Safety Standards Staff recommends revisiting the current health and life safety standards required by the STR ordinance. Currently, the town requires a self-compliance affidavit to be completed by the homeowner or property manager attesting that their property or properties adhere to the items listed on the affidavit including fire and building safety standards, community impacts like parking and noise ordinance, and occupancy limits. Based on recommendations from Vail Fire Department, staff has included the following requirements in the ordinance to improve safety compliance and create some alignment with commercial hotels and lodges:  Fire Department Inspections Town staff recommends requiring a periodic inspection of all short-term rental units not located in buildings with on-site, 24/7 management. Staff recommends requiring proof of inspection every three years as a condition of renewal of the STR license and verification of the fire and life-safety affidavit in intervening years. In order to stagger inspections of existing STR licensees, staff recommends an effective date of January 1st, 2026 for this requirement. This program would require additional staff time and administration costs which could be covered by increased STR license fees. Staff estimates approximately half of all current STR licenses would require an inspection Staff recommends requiring the following items in the proposed fire safety inspection: 1. Fire extinguishers 2. Adequacy of egress (exits) 3. Egress plan is posted 4. Carbon monoxide detectors 5. Smoke alarms 6. Occupant load 7. Improvised electrical conditions and use of extension cords 8. Use of portable heating appliances 9. Outdoor heating appliances 10. Physical address including unit # is provided in a conspicuous manner This policy is recommended to increase the health and life safety standards of these properties and mitigate the risk of property damage.  Require Proof of Adequate Insurance for Short-Term Rental Activity As identified by the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Institute and Insurance Information Institute, standard homeowner’s insurance policies are generally inadequate on their own to cover claims due to STR activity. This may negatively impact neighboring homes and units which experience claims due to the activity. Some insurers will cover these claims when the STR activity is very limited, generally one rental per year. Staff recommends requiring proof of one of the following with a minimum $1.0 million coverage for all STRs: o Endorsement to a home owner’s policy for coverage of STR activities o Proof of other gap insurance policy for STR activities, excluding automatic insurance provided by online STR rental platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, May 17, 2022 - Page 125 of 549 etc…These policies are far less comprehensive than standard homeowner’s or commercial insurance Tiered License Fees The Town of Vail’s current license fees are lower than peer communities and are well below the town’s administrative costs for STR enforcement. At the last council meeting, Town Council expressed support for the following base fees for STR licenses to cover administrative costs A. Base Fees to Cover Administrative Costs This base fee will cover costs to the Town including, but not limited to:  Software dedicated to enforcement of STR regulations and licensing  Staff time across the finance, fire, and code enforcement departments  Legal costs of enforcement  Monitoring of STR activity in Town B. Per Bedroom Fees to Fund Local Housing Initiatives Town Council also expressed support at the last meeting toward adopting a per-bedroom fee to fund housing initiatives in the Town. As covered previously by the fee nexus study, guests staying in STRs spend money in the local economy. This spending is primarily in the retail, food and beverage, and recreation industries which supports jobs that do not pay enough for employees to afford market-rate housing in the town. The basis of this fee is therefore the gap between what employees can afford and the cost to purchase an attached home in Vail. The calculation also accounts for the possibility that a home used as an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee is further based on the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local economy versus the baseline impact of local resident spending. The charts below show a few options for per bedroom fees, based on the maximum fee of $5,912. The full nexus study is included as Attachment A. Staff has received feedback from the Vail business community indicating that high per- bedroom fees may pose a significant cost to property management and “condo-tel” businesses. There has also been feedback that the town should treat “purpose-built” residential condo properties differently than other residential STRs. Unfortunately, based on the fee study as well as legal limitations, per-bedroom fees should be applied equally to all types of STR properties. However, the town can make an exception for primary, owner-occupied, and rentals less than 30-days per year that may be charged a reduced fee. Fees should also be charged equally across all areas of the town to avoid potential claims of unfair treatment and Equal Protection violations. Annual Estimated Revenue All STR Registrations $150 Per Registration $375,000 Base Fees (to cover Admin costs) May 17, 2022 - Page 126 of 549 The below chart outlines proposed per-bedroom fees for various mitigation rates. Currently, the town’s mitigation rate for commercial linkage is 30% and the town’s goal is to house at least 30% of employees locally in Vail. Based on those objectives, staff is proposing that Council choose from the following three fee options: Mitigation Rate Per-bedroom license fee Per-bedroom fee for primary residence, owner- occupied and rentals of less than 30-days per year. Revenue generated for housing 30% $1,800 $465 $9,478,000 20% $1,200 $310 $6,334,000 10% $600 $155 $3,190,000 The revenue generated by the per bedroom fee would be allocated to the town’s Housing Fund for investment in housing initiatives, developments, and programs. While the fees above raise significant dollars, they are one piece of the funding puzzle for housing. If approved, these fees will join other sources of revenue being allocated by the town. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Please provide feedback and direction to staff regarding the first reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series 2022. The following items are included in the attached ordinance based on Town Council support April 5th: 1. Increasing fines and penalties for violations of the STR code to $1,500 (first violation) and $2,650 (second violation / unlicensed unit) 2. Late fees for license renewals of $250 3. $150 flat license fee to cover administrative costs 4. An update to health and safety standard requirements for STRs including Fire Department inspections and proof of adequate insurance 5. Per bedroom fees have been included in the ordinance wording, with the dollar amount left blank until tonight’s discussion. Does Council support a per-bedroom fee amount? May 17, 2022 - Page 127 of 549 213137- STR Fee Technical Memo 5-12-22 M EMORANDUM To: Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director, Town of Vail From: Andrew Knudtsen and Rachel Shindman, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis; EPS #213137 Date: May 12, 2022 This technical memorandum summarizes the study supporting a fee program to be applied to short term accommodation unit (short term rental or “STR”) licensees in the Town of Vail. Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the Town of Vail to determine a reasonable fee for this program. The analysis demonstrates a reasonable relationship between guest spending from STRs in the town and the demand for housing. The study uses economic impact techniques to quantify the relationships between guest spending when staying in STRs and the number of jobs and employee-households supported in the local economy by that spending. Guests staying in STRs spend money in the local economy. This spending is primarily in the retail, food and beverage, and recreation industries, and in turn creates local jobs. These jobs generate demand for households, which then seek housing units. Many of the jobs created are at wage levels that do not pay enough for employees to afford market rate housing in the town. The basis of this fee is therefore the gap between what employees can afford and the cost to purchase a home in the Town of Vail. The calculation also accounts for the possibility that a home used as an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee is further based on the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local economy and the baseline impact of local resident spending. Rationale This regulatory fee is needed to support the local labor force and Town housing programs that sustain the tourism economy in Vail. Without an adequate supply of housing and housing support programs, the Town risks losing some of its labor supply that is essential to the businesses in which STR guests spend money during their stay. This is important, as tourism is a primary element of the Town’s economic base. ATTACHMENT A May 17, 2022 - Page 128 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 2 If businesses do not have an adequate labor force and if workers do not have adequate housing, the guest experience and the Town’s economy are likely to degrade. STR owners or hosts will pay an annual licensing fee under this program. The fee payers receive benefits through investment by the Town in housing for the workforce needed to sustain the visitor economy. STR owners and operators are likely to benefit from the supply of labor and from investments the Town will make using the fee revenue on housing for the local workforce. Having more housing options for the local workforce is also likely to benefit the fee payers in better customer service through increased employee retention and reduced employee turnover. Methodology This analysis uses a jobs-housing economic impact model to quantify the jobs and households supported by guest spending in STRs. The analysis begins by quantifying the jobs supported by spending. Next, several analytical steps are taken to translate the supported jobs to employees and employee-households (where a household is a group of people, related or unrelated, living in one occupied dwelling unit). The IMPLAN model (Impact Analysis for Planning) was used to estimate the relationships between spending and jobs supported. IMPLAN was developed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the University of Minnesota and is widely used by state and federal agencies, academic researchers, and local economic development organizations to evaluate the economic impacts of proposed policies, new industries, and land use changes. The conversion of jobs (from IMPLAN) to employee households uses analytical techniques commonly used in housing economics and affordable housing studies as discussed further in the body of this memorandum. Data Sources Analysis inputs come from the following sources: • Accommodation inventory: Town of Vail (number of units, number of bedrooms, average number of bedrooms per unit) • STR occupancy rates: Inntopia • Guest spending: Vail Lodging Guest Survey, 2017-2019 (RRC Associates) • Home prices: Multiple Listing Service (MLS) • Wages by Occupation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) • Median household income: U.S. Census (ACS 5-year estimates, Town of Vail) • Jobs per employee: 2016 Vail Employer Survey Results (RRC Associates) • Employees per household: U.S. Census (ACS 5-year estimates, Town of Vail) May 17, 2022 - Page 129 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 3 Guest Spending Analysis • Guest spending – Guest spending was modeled on the average expenditure across all accommodation types, with data inputs from the Vail Lodging Guest Survey averaged over the 2017 to 2019 time period (RRC Associates). The survey data provides per unit expenditures by type; based on this data, expenditures average $898 per unit per day, including $428 on food and beverage, $300 on retail/shopping, and $170 on entertainment and recreation. • Jobs supported by industry – The spending associated with guests is applied to the IMPLAN model as an “industry output” event for the three affected industries (NAICS 72 – Accommodation and Food Services, NAICS 44-45 – Retail Trade, and NAICS 71 – Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation). IMPLAN applies industry expenditure flows through its input-output model and estimates the spending and jobs supported in the 20 major industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). • Jobs to employees (multiple job holder adjustment) – An adjustment is made to acknowledge that many employees have more than one job, such as two part time jobs or a full time and a part time job. So as not to overestimate the number of employees supported, the number of jobs is reduced using a factor of 1.20 jobs per employee. This factor is specific to the Town of Vail, as reported in the 2016 Vail Employer Survey Results report (RRC Associates). • Employees by industry to occupations and wages – A NAICS industry contains a wide range of job types and wage ranges. For example, a worker in the retail NAICS sector could be an accountant (for the retailer) or retail showroom employee. The range of wages and occupations supported is better represented by the 21 Standard Occupational Classifications defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The National Industry by Occupation Matrix published by the BLS provides the estimated distribution of occupations and wages for each NAICS category. The results from the IMPLAN analysis are applied to the Industry by Occupation Matrix to estimate the number of jobs by wage level supported. • Household formation – A final adjustment is made to account for the fact that many households have more than one earner. This adjustment has the effect of raising the collective income of the employees within a household, thus increasing the amount the employee-household can pay for housing and reducing the gap between their ability to pay and the cost of housing. In the Town of Vail, there are an average of 1.85 earners per household (US Census ACS 5-Year estimates). In this analysis, the first earner earns the wage derived from the economic impact analysis and allocation to occupations. The “second” 0.85 earner is assumed to earn 0.85 multiplied by average wage in the industry of the primary earner. • Tabulation of households by income range – The last step involves counting the number of households supported by income range, expressed as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI). Given the breadth of need addressed by housing programs and policies in the Town of Vail, all households earning up to 200 percent of AMI are included for this analysis. The AMI definitions are based on the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) 2020 income limits for Eagle County. May 17, 2022 - Page 130 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 4 Local Resident Household Analysis The last component of the analysis involves isolating the difference between guest spending and local resident household spending. To do this, the same steps outlined above are undertaken for a resident household earning the local median income of $89,987 (as reported in the U.S. Census ACS 2019 data for Vail) to document the jobs supported from household spending in the economy. This household income is input to the IMPLAN model, which applies an expenditure profile (including savings) specific to the household income range. The model then estimates the spending and jobs supported in the 20 major NAICS industries. The same steps to determine need by AMI range are completed, and this housing need is then subtracted from that of guest spending, resulting in the needs associated with guest spending above those of a local resident household. May 17, 2022 - Page 131 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 5 Analysis Guest Spending Guest spending was modeled on the average per-unit expenditure across all accommodation types, with data inputs from the Vail Lodging Guest Survey averaged over the 2017 to 2019 time period (RRC Associates). Within the IMPLAN model 1,000 accommodation units were modeled in order to establish an appropriate scale of analysis. Per unit and per bedroom adjustments are made later in the model to calibrate the fee. As shown in Table 1, with an average daily spending rate of $898 per unit per day, 1,000 units results in total annual spending of $327.9 million. Note that at this point in the analysis 100 percent occupancy (365 days of spending) is used. The average annual occupancy rate adjustment is applied later in the analysis. Table 1. Guest Spending Description Factors Guest Spending - All Program Units 1,000 Guest Spending (per unit per day) Food & beverage $428 Retail/shopping $300 Entertainment/recreational activities $170 Total $898 Annual Guest Spending (per unit per year) Food & beverage 365 days (100% occ.)$156,233 Retail/shopping 365 days (100% occ.)$109,539 Entertainment/recreational activities 365 days (100% occ.)$62,144 Total $327,916 Total Guest Spending Food & beverage 1,000 units $156,233,398 Retail/shopping 1,000 units $109,538,597 Entertainment/recreational activities 1,000 units $62,143,716 Total $327,915,711 Source: RRC Associates; Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 132 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 6 Jobs, Employees, and Households As shown in Table 2, the spending associated with 1,000 accommodation units supports 3,208.15 jobs. The industries with the most jobs are those with direct spending impacts – specifically accommodation and food services; arts, entertainment and recreation; and retail. Following total jobs, the next step is to translate jobs to employees. In today’s economy it is common for people to hold more than one job. To step down from jobs to employees, jobs are divided by a factor of 1.20 jobs per employee. As shown in Table 2, the 3,208.15 jobs supported by 1,000 accommodation units results in 2,673.46 employees after the adjustment for multiple job holders. Table 2. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Guest Spending Guest Spending Description Jobs by Industry (IMPLAN Results) Employees by Category Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.20 Industrial Sectors 11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 3.87 3.22 21 Mining 0.50 0.42 22 Utilities 2.62 2.18 23 Construction 13.92 11.60 31-33 Manufacturing 1.51 1.26 42 Wholesale Trade 15.52 12.93 44-45 Retail trade 453.41 377.84 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 32.90 27.42 51 Information 11.71 9.76 52 Finance & insurance 43.32 36.10 53 Real estate & rental 117.30 97.75 54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 85.72 71.44 55 Management of companies 20.92 17.44 56 Administrative & waste services 101.20 84.33 61 Educational svcs 14.11 11.76 62 Health & social services 58.41 48.67 71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 536.29 446.91 72 Accomodation & food services 1,637.30 1,364.41 81 Other services 50.88 42.40 91-99 Government & non NAICs 6.74 5.62 Total 3,208.15 2,673.46 Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 133 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 7 Employee to Household Conversion To translate employees to households and their related income levels, the analysis steps are as follows: • Employees by Occupation – The jobs by NAICS classification are converted to more specific occupation categories to obtain a more detailed distribution of wage levels for the new jobs, since using the average wage for an industry masks the upper and lower wage levels. The BLS National Industry by Occupation Matrix provides the estimated distribution of occupations for each NAICS category. The wages for each occupation in Eagle County are estimated by indexing the national wages by occupation and industry to the average wage in that industry for Eagle County. • Employees to Households – The next adjustment for estimating housing demand is to account for multiple earners per household. On average, there are 1.85 earners per household in the Town of Vail. This adjustment reduces the 2,673.46 employees supported from guest spending in 1,000 accommodation units to 1,445.11 employee- households. • Wages and Household Income – The next step in the employee and household analysis is to estimate household incomes accounting for the wages from the primary and secondary earners in the household. The primary earner – the jobs estimate from the IMPLAN analysis – is assigned the average wage for their industry and occupation. The second 0.85 earner (totaling 1.85 earners per household) is assumed to make the average wage for the industry in which the primary earner is employed. Households and Target Income Ranges The last step in the guest spending analysis is to tabulate the employee-households at income levels of 200 percent of AMI or less. For guest spending in 1,000 accommodation units, there are 1,426.3 employee households supported below 200 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 3. Of the 1,445.1 total employee-households supported, 98.7 percent are at incomes of 200 percent of AMI or less. The balance of 1.3 percent are compensated sufficiently to afford market rate housing. These are the employee households needed to support the spending in the economy from 1,000 STR units. Table 3. Households by AMI Supported by Guest Spending Guest Spending - All Total Households Generated per 1,000 Units 1,445.1 Households by Income Range 30% of Median 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 80% of Median 282.0 100% of Median 950.4 120% of Median 50.8 150% of Median 90.6 200% of Median 52.5 Total - Target Income Ranges 1,426.3 Percent of Households Generated 98.7% Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 134 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 8 Employee-Household Housing Gap To determine affordability needs, the gap for households earning up to 200 percent AMI (by AMI category) is calculated based on the cost to purchase a home in the town, estimated using the median cost for attached homes (e.g., condos). Housing costs were based on sales during the four-year period from 2018 through 2021. This calculation assumes an income for a 2.5-person household as a proxy for an average household size and uses CHFA income levels for Eagle County as those are the income definitions used in most housing qualification processes. As shown in Table 4, affordable prices at these AMI levels range from $55,700 at 30 percent AMI to $726,800 at 200 percent AMI. With a median home cost of $1,250,000, the gap per unit ranges from $1,194,300 at 30 percent AMI to $523,200 at 200 percent AMI. Table 4. Affordable Price and Gap by Income Range AMI Description 30%60%80%100%120%150%200% HH Income and Housing Expense HH Income (2.5-person household)2.5 pp/hh $25,500 $51,000 $68,000 $85,000 $102,000 $127,500 $170,000 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost 30%$638 $1,275 $1,700 $2,125 $2,550 $3,188 $4,250 Supportable Monthly Payment Less: Insurance $2,500/year -$208 -$208 -$208 -$208 -$208 -$208 -$208 Less: Property Taxes 7.15% ass't rate 50.751 mills -$20 -$60 -$80 -$100 -$120 -$160 -$210 Less: Miscellaneous (e.g. HOA Dues)$1,500/year -$125 -$125 -$125 -$125 -$125 -$125 -$125 Net Supportable Mortgage Payment (Monthly)$284 $882 $1,287 $1,692 $2,097 $2,694 $3,707 Valuation Assumptions Loan Amount $52,900 $164,200 $239,700 $315,100 $390,600 $501,900 $690,500 Mortgage Interest Rate 5.0% int. 5.0% int. 5.0% int. 5.0% int. 5.0% int. 5.0% int. 5.0% int. Loan Term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term 30-year term Downpayment as % of Purchase Price 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt 5.0% down pmt Maximum Supportable Purchase Price $55,700 $172,800 $252,300 $331,700 $411,200 $528,300 $726,800 Cost per Unit $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Gap per Unit $1,194,300 $1,077,200 $997,700 $918,300 $838,800 $721,700 $523,200 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Factor May 17, 2022 - Page 135 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 9 Local Resident Spending To isolate the effect of guest spending on housing need, a similar methodology was followed to determine the relationship between a local resident household and housing need. This was then subtracted from the guest impact. Local resident spending was modeled based on the median household income in Vail of $80,987, as reported in the U.S. Census 2019 American Community Survey. As with guest spending, 1,000 households were modeled and per household adjustment is made to calculate the final fee. As shown in Table 5, a household income of $80,987 results in a disposable income of $58,774 after accounting for payroll tax. Based on these figures, the total disposable income for 1,000 households is $58.77 million. Table 5. Local Resident Household Income Description Factors Local Spending Program Units 1,000 HH Income (Vail median)ACS 2019 5-Yr Estimate $80,987 Minus Payroll Tax Federal $12,697 FICA $5,021 Medicare $1,174 State $3,321 Total Deductions $22,213 Net Pay / Adjusted Household Income $58,774 Total Annual Household Income 100%$80,987,000 Total Annual Payroll Rax 27%-$22,213,000 Disposable Income 73%$58,774,000 Source: US Census; Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 136 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 10 This income was input to IMPLAN, which then calculates the jobs supported by this household spending. As shown in Table 6, 1,000 households earning the median income support 312.72 jobs. Applying the multiple jobholder factor of 1.20 jobs per employee, this spending results in 260.60 employees. Table 6. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Local Spending Local Spending Description Jobs by Industry (IMPLAN Results) Employees by Category Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.20 Industrial Sectors 11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1.01 0.84 21 Mining 0.10 0.09 22 Utilities 0.63 0.52 23 Construction 3.94 3.28 31-33 Manufacturing 0.47 0.39 42 Wholesale Trade 5.60 4.67 44-45 Retail trade 47.77 39.81 48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 9.53 7.94 51 Information 3.72 3.10 52 Finance & insurance 18.83 15.69 53 Real estate & rental 46.47 38.73 54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 15.20 12.67 55 Management of companies 1.66 1.38 56 Administrative & waste services 21.54 17.95 61 Educational svcs 7.00 5.83 62 Health & social services 50.17 41.81 71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 11.74 9.79 72 Accomodation & food services 40.19 33.49 81 Other services 25.30 21.08 91-99 Government & non NAICs 1.86 1.55 Total 312.72 260.60 Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 137 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 11 These employees were then categorized by occupation and wage and converted into employee households following the same methodology for guest spending. As shown in Table 7, local resident household spending supports a total of 140.90 employee- households, 93.0 percent (131.0 households) of which fall at or below 200 percent of AMI. Affordability needs of these households are determined using the same methodology outlined for guest spending. Table 7. Households by AMI Supported by Local Spending Local Spending Total Households Generated per 1,000 Units 140.9 Households by Income Range 30% of Median 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 80% of Median 18.0 100% of Median 60.1 120% of Median 13.8 150% of Median 28.6 200% of Median 10.5 Total - Target Income Ranges 131.0 Percent of Households Generated 93.0% Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 138 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 12 Fee Calculation This section outlines the calculation of the accommodation unit license fee. There are four key components to the fee calculation: • Households Supported – The number of households at or below 200 percent of AMI supported by guest spending form the basis of the fee, as these represent employees needed in the community who cannot otherwise afford housing. • Occupancy Rate – The impacts of guest spending were determined assuming 100 percent occupancy (i.e., 365 days per year) for modeling purposes and needs to be adjusted for annual occupancy rates. An occupancy rate of 40.0 percent is applied to the housing demand, based on the occupancy data for properties in Zone 1 and Zone 2 from 2016 through 2019 as well as 2021 (2020 was excluded, as COVID impacts made the data non-representative of local conditions). • Affordability Gap – The affordability gap per household and AMI range described earlier ranges from $523,200 at 200 percent of AMI to $1,194,300 at 30 percent of AMI. The number of households in each AMI category (after accounting for the occupancy rate) are multiplied by the gap per household to calculate the total affordability gap. This gap is calculated for both guest spending and local spending. Based on this calculation, the gap per accommodation unit is $515,216 and the gap per local household/housing unit is $110,819. • Adjustment for Local Households – To isolate the impact of guest spending above the impact of a local household, the gap associated with local household spending ($110,819) is subtracted from the gap associated with guest spending ($515,216). This results in a net gap per accommodation unit of $404,397. This fee is then adjusted to reflect a per-bedroom figure (rather than per unit). EPS’s analysis of the Town’s STR data indicates that STRs have an average of 2.28 bedrooms per unit. This is then annualized over 30 years (divided by 30), which is a typical financing period for a long-term housing investment. Based on this analysis, the maximum fee per bedroom is $5,912, as shown in Table 8. This maximum fee amount is the annualized cost of providing housing to the local workforce supported by guest spending. May 17, 2022 - Page 139 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 13 Table 8. Fee Calculation Local Spending Guest Spending - All Households Generated (per 1,000 units)A 30% of Median 0.0 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 0.0 80% of Median 18.0 282.0 100% of Median 60.1 950.4 120% of Median 13.8 50.8 150% of Median 28.6 90.6 200% of Median 10.5 52.5 Total per 100 Units 131.0 1,426.3 Per 1.0 Units 0.13 1.43 STR Occupancy Rate B 40.0% Net Households Generated (per 1,000 units)C 30% of Median A x B 0.0 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 0.0 80% of Median 18.0 112.7 100% of Median 60.1 379.7 120% of Median 13.8 20.3 150% of Median 28.6 36.2 200% of Median 10.5 21.0 Total per 1,000 Units 131.0 569.8 Per 1.0 Units 0.13 0.57 Gap per Household by AMI Range D 30% of Median $1,194,300 $1,194,300 50% of Median $1,077,200 $1,077,200 80% of Median $997,700 $997,700 100% of Median $918,300 $918,300 120% of Median $838,800 $838,800 150% of Median $721,700 $721,700 200% of Median $523,200 $523,200 Total Gap E 30% of Median C x D $0 $0 50% of Median $0 $0 80% of Median $17,918,868 $112,400,795 100% of Median $55,196,836 $348,678,886 120% of Median $11,568,172 $17,037,798 150% of Median $20,634,526 $26,123,638 200% of Median $5,500,933 $10,975,135 Total $110,819,335 $515,216,252 Gap (Fee) per Unit F E / 1000 -$110,819 -$515,216 Net STR Gap per Unit (minus local spend)-$404,397 Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.28 Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$177,367 Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $5,912 Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 140 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 14 Final Fee The fee outlined above represents the maximum reasonable fee to be charged under this program. Communities will generally apply a mitigation rate to this fee to determine the final fee to be charged. As shown in Table 9, a mitigation rate of 15 percent would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $890, a 50 percent mitigation rate would result in a $2,960 annual fee, while a 65 percent mitigation rate would result in a fee of $3,840 per bedroom annually. Table 9. Mitigation Rates Over time, as development opportunities within communities have become limited, as market pressures have increased, and as commute-sheds have grown, local officials have increased mitigation rates, reflecting a greater pressure on the need for local affordable housing. Mitigation rates in peer communities for similar programs (STR fees, residential linkage fees, and commercial linkage fees) range from 15 percent to 65 percent, with many programs falling in the middle of that range. Description Fee Per Bedroom Maximum Annual Fee $5,912 Mitigation Rate 15%$890 20%$1,180 25%$1,480 30%$1,770 35%$2,070 40%$2,360 45%$2,660 50%$2,960 55%$3,250 60%$3,550 65%$3,840 Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 141 of 549 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 15 Owner-Occupied Short Term Rentals In the Town of Vail, owner-occupied properties are limited to 30 days or less of short term rentals per year. A unit rented for a maximum of 30 days per year represents a maximum occupancy rate of 8.2 percent, and thus justifies a separate fee calculation. Additionally, since these units are occupied by local residents the impact of guest spending occurs in addition to the impact of local spending. Thus, the impact of local household spending is not netted out of the guest spending impact attributed to the STR. As shown in Table 11, this results in a maximum annual fee per bedroom of $1,550. As with the standard fee, a mitigation rate would be applied to determine the final fee to be charged. Examples of the per-bedroom fee at a range of mitigation rate levels are shown in Table 10. For example, a 15 percent rate would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $230, a 50 percent mitigation rate would result in a $780 annual fee, while a 65 percent mitigation rate would result in a fee of $1,010 per bedroom annually. Table 10. Mitigation Rates – Owner Occupied Units Description Fee Per Bedroom Maximum Annual Fee $1,550 Mitigation Rate 15%$230 20%$310 25%$390 30%$470 35%$540 40%$620 45%$700 50%$780 55%$850 60%$930 65%$1,010 Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 142 of 549 Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis Page | 16 Table 11. Fee Calculation – Owner Occupied Units Guest Spending - Owner-Occupied Households Generated (per 1,000 units)A 30% of Median 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 80% of Median 282.0 100% of Median 950.4 120% of Median 50.8 150% of Median 90.6 200% of Median 52.5 Total per 100 Units 1,426.3 Per 1.0 Units 1.43 STR Occupancy Rate B 8.2% Net Households Generated (per 1,000 units)C 30% of Median A x B 0.0 50% of Median 0.0 80% of Median 23.2 100% of Median 78.1 120% of Median 4.2 150% of Median 7.4 200% of Median 4.3 Total per 1,000 Units 117.2 Per 1.0 Units 0.12 Gap per Household by AMI Range D 30% of Median $1,194,300 50% of Median $1,077,200 80% of Median $997,700 100% of Median $918,300 120% of Median $838,800 150% of Median $721,700 200% of Median $523,200 Total Gap E 30% of Median C x D $0 50% of Median $0 80% of Median $23,123,770 100% of Median $71,732,325 120% of Median $3,505,119 150% of Median $5,374,313 200% of Median $2,257,871 Total $105,993,397 Gap (Fee) per Unit F E / 1000 -$105,993 Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.28 Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$46,488 Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $1,550 Source: Economic & Planning Systems May 17, 2022 - Page 143 of 549 1 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 11 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 4-14 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE, REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, AND ESTABLISHING A LICENSING PROGRAM AND ANNUAL FEE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS WHEREAS, guests staying in short-term rentals ("STRs") in the Town spend money in the local economy, primarily in the retail, food and beverage and recreation industries, and in turn create local jobs; WHEREAS, these jobs generate demand for housing, but many of the jobs created are at wage levels that do not pay enough for employees to afford market rate housing in the Town; WHEREAS, without an adequate supply of housing and housing support programs, the Town risks losing some of its labor supply that is essential to the businesses in which STR guests spend money during their stay; WHEREAS, to pay for the required housing supply and support programs, and to cover the costs of administering the Town's STR licensing program, annual fees for STRs are necessary; WHEREAS, the Town contracted with Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. to conduct a study to determine the appropriate fees for STRs, and the Town Council is relying on that study to set the annual fees for STRs; WHEREAS, without regulation by the Town, nuisances created by STRs, such as noise, parking issues and over-occupancy, would negatively impact neighborhoods in the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to ensure the safety of guests staying in STRs by ensuring that they meet minimal life-safety requirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Chapter 4-14 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and reenacted as follows: CHAPTER 14 SHORT-TERM RENTALS 4-14-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a comprehensive licensing program to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare by May 17, 2022 - Page 144 of 549 2 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX regulating and controlling the use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of short-term rentals in the Town. B. This Chapter shall apply to short-term rentals only, as defined herein. This Chapter shall not supersede or affect any private conditions, covenants, or restrictions applicable to short-term rentals. 4-14-2: DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings: LEASE: Any agreement, whether verbal or written, by which an owner gives to a tenant, for valuable consideration, possession and use of property or a portion thereof for a definite term, at the end of which term the owner has an absolute right to retake control and use of the property. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE: The home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one has a present intention of returning after a departure or absence therefrom. In determining what is a principal place of residence, the Town shall consider the criteria set forth in C.R.S. § 31- 10-201(3), as amended. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRM: An entity comprised of one or more professional property managers with all required licenses in good standing, or a group of one or more employees of a lodge or fractional fee club (as those terms are defined in Section 12-2-2 of this Code) who are trained in property management and provide such services to owners of STRs within the lodge or fractional fee club, which entity or group is designated by the STR owner to act as the STR owner's agent regarding the STR. PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED STR: An STR that is managed, operated or controlled by a property management firm. SHORT-TERM RENTAL (STR): A residential dwelling unit, or any room therein, available for lease for a term of less than thirty (30) consecutive days, but excluding bed and breakfasts and accommodation units. 4-14-3: LICENSE REQUIRED: A. General. A current, valid license is required for each STR in the Town. Each STR license is non-transferable. B. Application. For new licenses and renewals, the STR owner or property management firm shall file an application with the Finance Director or designee, on forms supplied by the Town, accompanied by the following: 1. The applicable license fee established by Section 4-14-4; May 17, 2022 - Page 145 of 549 3 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX 2. An administrative fee of $150, which administrative fee shall be used by the Town to offset the costs of processing the application; 3. An affidavit, signed by the owner or the property management firm, under penalty of perjury, certifying that the STR is in habitable condition and complies with the health and safety standards set forth in this Chapter; and 4. If the STR is located within a duplex, a copy of a written notice sent by the owner or property manager to the last known address of the record owner of the adjoining residential dwelling unit, by first-class mail at least seven (7) days prior to submission of the application. B. Local Representative. Each application shall include the appointment of a natural person who shall remain within a sixty (60) minute distance of the STR and is available twenty four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, to serve as the local representative for the STR. At least five (5) days prior to any change in such appointment, the STR owner or property management firm shall notify the Town of such change, including new contact information. For an STR located in a building with onsite management services available at all times, if the STR owner uses such services, no local representative appointment shall be required. C. Expiration; Renewal. Each STR license shall expire on February 28 of each calendar year, or when title of the STR transfers to a new owner, whichever occurs first; each change in ownership of a STR shall require a new license. D. Timing. An initial license application shall be filed at least thirty (30) days prior to any advertising of an STR. A renewal application shall be filed by January 31 of the year in which the license expires. E. Revocation. In addition to any other penalties allowed by this Chapter, the Town may revoke any STR license if the Town finds and determines that any violation of this Chapter exists at the STR; provided that the Town provides the licensee with at least fourteen (14) days' prior written notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to revocation. The notice shall include a description of the violation and the date and time when the STR owner may appear and be heard, and the notice shall be either personally served on the STR owner or mailed by first-class United States Mail to the last-known address of the STR owner or property management firm. 4-14-4: LICENSE FEES: A. The purpose of the STR license fee is to offset the impacts of STR use and occupancy on the Town's workforce, and particularly workforce housing, as demonstrated by the current study performed by the Town May 17, 2022 - Page 146 of 549 4 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX regarding such issues, and also to cover the Town's costs in administering the STR licensing program established by this Chapter. B. The STR license fee shall be imposed per bedroom offered for lease, and the maximum number of bedrooms offered at any time during a calendar year shall be used to establish the amount of the fee. By way of example, if an STR includes one (1) bedroom for lease for eleven (11) months in a calendar year, but three (3) bedrooms for lease for one (1) month of a calendar year, the STR shall be subject to the STR fee for three (3) bedrooms. C. The STR license fee is assessed per calendar year. If an STR license is revoked, no refund shall be provided. If an application is filed mid- year, the license fee shall be reduced accordingly. D. The license fees for STRs are as follows: 1. An STR located on property that is the property owner's principal place of residence: $_______ per bedroom. 2. An STR that is rented for less than thirty (30) total days per year, regardless of whether the property is the property owner's principal place of residence: $______ per bedroom. 3. All other STRs: $ ______ per bedroom. 4-14-5: INSURANCE: Every STR shall be continuously insured, with minimum limits of $1,000,000. The insurance may be in any of the following forms: property liability insurance; commercial liability insurance; or an endorsement to a homeowner’s policy for coverage of STR activities. Insurance provided by online STR platforms does not qualify as valid insurance under this subsection. 4-14-6: HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS; INSPECTIONS: A. Standards: Each STR shall comply with all of the following standards, at a minimum, at all times while the STR is occupied: 1. Buildings, structures or rooms shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were designed or intended. 2. Roofs, floors, walls, foundations, ceilings, stairs, handrails, guardrails, doors, porches, all other structural components and all appurtenances thereto shall be capable of resisting any and all forces and loads to which they may be normally subjected and shall be kept in sound condition and in good repair. May 17, 2022 - Page 147 of 549 5 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX 3. An operable toilet, sink, and either a bathtub or shower shall be located within the same building, and every room containing a toilet or bathtub/shower shall be completely enclosed by walls, doors, or windows that will afford sufficient privacy. 4. There shall be a sufficient number of trash receptacles to accommodate all trash generated by the occupants, and all receptacles shall comply with Title 5, Chapter 9 of this Code. 5. Occupancy of an STR shall comply with Title 12, Chapter 2 of this Code. 6. The use of portable outdoor fireplaces is prohibited. 7. Electrical panels shall be clearly labeled. 8. All pets shall be subject to Title 6, Chapter 4 of this Code. 9. All items listed in subsection B.2. hereof shall comply with the current Vail Fire Code. 10. Parking for each STR shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code. All vehicles shall be parked in designated parking areas, and parking is prohibited in any landscaped area. 11. A sign shall be conspicuously inside each STR with the STR license number, the local representative's current contact information, and the physical address of the STR, including unit number if applicable. B. Inspections: 1. When required: a. Each STR, other than those located in buildings with on-site management services available at all times, shall obtain a fire and life safety inspection as a condition of license issuance and every three (3) years thereafter. Requests for inspections shall be made to Vail Fire and Emergency Services at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the initial license application and at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of each subsequent three (3) year period. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each STR that was validly registered with the Town on the date of the ordinance codified in this Section, and is not located in a building with on-site management services available at all times, is eligible for an STR license without an initial inspection, provided that the STR is inspected prior to January 1, 2026 and every three (3) years thereafter. Requests for initial inspections shall be made to Vail Fire and Emergency Services May 17, 2022 - Page 148 of 549 6 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX on or before July 1, 2025, and requests for later inspections shall be made at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of each subsequent three (3) year period. 2. Items Inspected: The following will be inspected by Vail Fire and Emergency Services for compliance with the current Vail Fire Code: a. Fire extinguishers; b. Adequacy of egress; c. Posted egress plan; d. Carbon monoxide detectors; e. Smoke alarms; f. Occupant load; g. Improvised electrical conditions and use of extension cords; h. Use of portable heating appliances and outdoor heating appliances; and i. Conspicuous posting of the physical address of the STR. 3. Re-inspection: If an inspection reveals that an STR is not in compliance with this Chapter, a re-inspection shall be required. Re- inspections must be scheduled in advance and may take up to sixty (60) days to complete. 4-14-7: ADVERTISING: Advertising for an STR shall include the STR license number immediately following the description of the STR. 4-14-8: TAXES: A. All applicable Town Sales and Lodging Taxes for STRs shall be timely collected and remitted. B. A property management firm may submit one tax payment for multiple STRs, so long as there is sufficient supporting information to identify each individual STR and the taxes collected on such STR. 4-14-9: INITIAL COMPLAINTS: Initial complaints concerning a short-term rental property shall be directed to the local representative. The local representative shall resolve the issue May 17, 2022 - Page 149 of 549 7 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX that was the subject of the complaint within sixty (60) minutes, or within thirty (30) minutes if the problem occurs between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., including visiting the site if necessary. 4-14-10: VIOLATION AND PENALTY: A. Violation: It is unlawful to violate any provision of this Chapter. Each day of violation shall be deemed a separate offense. B. Liability: Each STR owner shall be liable for any and all violations occurring at the STR. A property management firm shall be jointly and severally liable for any and all violations occurring at any of its professionally managed STRs in the Town. C. Civil Enforcement: 1. If the Town chooses civil enforcement, a citation may be served by posting on the front door of the STR, or by personal service on the STR owner or professional management firm, or by mailing first class U.S. Mail to the last known address of the STR owner or property management firm. 2. Civil violations shall be subject to the following fines and penalties, per STR: First violation in any twelve (12) month period: $1,500 Second violation in any twelve (12) month period: $2,650 3. All penalties shall be paid within fourteen (14) days of the date of the citation. If the civil violation is paid, there shall be no opportunity to challenge or otherwise appeal the violation. If the STR owner disputes the violation, the STR shall file a written protest with the Town within fourteen (14) days of the date of the citation. 4. If the STR protests the citation, the Town shall cancel the citation and proceed to criminal enforcement. 5. If the penalty is not timely paid and no protest is timely filed, the Town may summarily suspend the STR license until the penalty is fully paid. Written notice of such suspension shall be provided to the last-known address of the STR owner, or to the local representative or property management firm. D. Criminal Enforcement: If the Town chooses criminal enforcement or a protest is filed and the civil citation is canceled, a summons and complaint may be served as provided in the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The penalties shall be as set forth in Section 1-4-1 of this Code. May 17, 2022 - Page 150 of 549 8 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX E. Suspension: Regardless of the type of enforcement, the third violation in any twelve (12) month period for a single STR, regardless of ownership of the STR, shall result in a three (3) year suspension, commending on the date of the last violation, during which no license shall be granted for such STR. F. Other Remedies: In addition to the penalties described above, the Town shall have any and all remedies provided by law and in equity for a violation of this Chapter, including without limitation: damages; specific performance; and injunctive relief, including without limitation an injunction requiring eviction of any occupants of the STR and an injunction to prohibit the occupancy of any property in violation of this Chapter. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 151 of 549 9 5/12/2022 S:\FINANCE\BUDGET\BUDGET 22\TOWN COUNCIL MEMOS\STR\STR-O051222 ORDINANCE 11.2022 1ST READING.DOCX INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of May, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 7th day of June, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 17th day of May, 2022. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 152 of 549 FIRST READING SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE 11, SERIES OF 2022May 17, 2022 - Page 153 of 549 Town of Vail | Finance | 5/17/2022 SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE ITEMSIncreased Violation Penalties Fire Department InspectionsProof of Insurance Covering STR Activity or Equivalent Coverage$150 License Fee Covering TOV Costs of the ProgramPer-Bedroom Fee for Housing Initiatives May 17, 2022 - Page 154 of 549 Town of Vail | Finance | 5/17/2022 PER-BEDROOM FEERevenue from this fee would be dedicated to housing fund initiatives. Staff is requesting clarification on the fee rate Council would like to imposeStaff to propose three options to Town Council: 30% mitigation = $1,80020% mitigation = $1,20010% mitigation = $ 600Approx. 30% mitigation rate is lower than peer communitiesStaff recommends a lower rate of per bedroom for owner-occupied, primary residences and rentals less than 30 days per year. Mitigation Rate Per-bedroom license fee Per-bedroom fee for primary residence, owner-occupied and rentals of less than 30-days per year. Revenue generated for housing 30% $1,800 $465 $9,478,000 20% $1,200 $310 $6,334,000 10% $600 $155 $3,190,000 May 17, 2022 - Page 155 of 549 Town of Vail | Finance | 5/17/2022 Discussion – Does Council Wish to Make Updates To Any Section of the Ordinance: Per-bedroom fees for housing – How Much? $150 Administrative fees?Updates to violation structure & fines?Fire department inspections?Insurance requirementDoes Council approve or approve with amendments the first reading of Ordinance 11, Series of 2022? DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPSMay 17, 2022 - Page 156 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Proposed updates to the current STR ordinance Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:19:39 AM Attachments:image001.png image003.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Michael Connolly <mikec@triumphmountainproperties.com> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 1:22 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: FW: Proposed updates to the current STR ordinance Over the past several years, across the USA, the business of STRs has been held responsible for what some perceive to be the degradation of communities due to the loss of residences that had been part of the long-term local’s housing stock. While this may be true in some instances, it is a fairly broad brush to paint an entire industry with, particularly one that in resort communities like Vail has historically played such a large role in the tourist lodging sector – those people who come here and spend the money that allows the rest of us to call this place “home”. When the town introduced the current STR ordinance it took into account the importance of STRs to the local economy and made a start at finding some balance between them and the burgeoning May 17, 2022 - Page 157 of 549 long-term housing crisis. As with any industry that has previously had a relatively free hand to operate, the local professional management companies were at first not overly receptive to the proposed new ordinance, but in time it became clear that it was a good thing for there to be some oversight and modest regulation in order to improve the way in which STRs were handled within the Town of Vail. Personally, having been involved in this business for 20 years at the time, I thought the Town did an excellent job of responding to the growing concerns some had about STRs while not creating an excessively burdensome regulatory environment and recognizing the value of professional management companies. As a member of the VEAC, I have had the opportunity to see the next iteration of the ordinance on STRs and am very concerned that the Town may take some steps here that create economic harm rather than benefit. The additions to the ordinance relating to raising the annual registration fee, periodic safety inspections by the fire department, increased fines for violations and penalties for late license filings/renewals all seem perfectly reasonable. What does not seem reasonable is a per bedroom fee (and let’s call it a tax because in every way other than the voting requirement associated with a tax, that’s what it is) that at its highest is proposed to be $1800/bedroom. There are several points that I would ask you to consider: At $1800 per bedroom (or really at any number north of $100-200) this is unlikely to be a charge that professional managers will find easy to pass along to owners. We will end up paying some or all of it, adding to an increased cost base we are all experiencing due to the general shortage of labor. Basic economics is already forcing higher prices onto our guests, and fees at this level or anything close to it will result in further price increases. Having just navigated our way through a season fraught with challenges for VR and local businesses that had negative impacts on the perception of Vail as a vacation destination, do we really want to pile on more reasons to make our guests question their choice of ski or summer destination? While it is noble to point out that all of the dollars raised from the per bedroom fee will go into the Town’s housing budget, it seems to many of us that our industry is being singled out to bear the burden. I recognize that hotels are subject to different license fees, etc., but the feel of this at $1800 per bedroom is excessive (Triumph Mountain Properties is a small player in this market, but even so this would create a cost well in excess of $100K for us). Depending on how this cost is paid for, it is likely that some companies may be forced out of business while others may need to trim staffing in order to afford this charge – the possibility that some locals could lose their jobs or see their hours reduced seems highly ironic given that the underlying reason would be to help solve the housing issues that keep people from living and working here. The Town has a tough task in trying to implement something like this. It is tempting and easy to create a one size fits all solution, but that does not reflect the realities of the situation. You are trying to balance maintaining the integrity of traditionally residential neighborhoods while continuing to permit an activity that has a long history here and provides direct (sales & May 17, 2022 - Page 158 of 549 lodging taxes) and indirect (transfer taxes on real estate purchases, retail sales tax on shopping & dining) to the Town. Moreover, there is a sizeable portion of the STR stock that you might make subject to this per bedroom fee that has never (nor will it ever) by its absence from the market be a detriment to the long-term housing needs of the community. It is easy as well to say Zone 1 properties should be exempt, but there are plenty of properties in Zone 2 that should also be exempt because they are not properties that would likely be local’s housing. The Town has a chance here to be forward thinking in its approach to managing and regulating STRs. I would strongly encourage you all to resist the urge to take the easy, blanket solution and work toward a more nuanced approach that reflects the complex set of circumstances you are working with. The laws of unintended consequences have great relevance here! Regards, Mike Connolly May 17, 2022 - Page 159 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Short Term Rentals changes Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:20:14 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 1:14 PM To: Kathleen Halloran <KHalloran@vailgov.com>; Matthew VanEyll <MVaneyll@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com>; Kim Langmaid <KLangmaid@vailgov.com>; Jonathan Staufer <JStaufer@vailgov.com>; Jen Mason <JMason@vailgov.com>; Travis Coggin <TCoggin@vailgov.com>; Pete Seibert <PSeibert@vailgov.com>; Barry Davis <BDavis@vailgov.com> Subject: Short Term Rentals changes Hello Kathleen and Matthew, We are pleased to see the TOV working on adjustments to short term registrations and potential licensing. The influx of STRs in our neighborhood a few years ago negatively changed the experience and I believe that better regulation and monitoring should help the situation. I have a couple of questions: Several weeks back I believe there was a memo from the Finance Department stating that the $150 annual STR registration fee did not even cover Admin for the program. Yet the proposal I see on the Council agenda suggests leaving the fee at $150. Did I miss May 17, 2022 - Page 160 of 549 something? Why would a program that benefits outside investors not even pay for itself for the TOV to administer? If the proposal relies on fines or a possible bedroom fee to cover the shortfall it seems backwards as an improved and better monitored STR license program could minimize fines. Crested Butte charges a $750 annual fee with the first 2 years paid up front. Why doesn’t a community like Vail charge at least $750 to establish a vitally needed program. I hope someone can fill me in on the rationale. We support the suggestion that there be a limitation of 20% STRs outside the village core and where there is no front desk or onsite management. It could be a great help in maintaining a residential atmosphere and enhancing safety and security. Thank you for your work on this sticky topic. Regards, Pam Pamela Stenmark pamelas@vail.net (c) 970-376-1124 May 17, 2022 - Page 161 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR considerations Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:21:40 AM Attachments:STR Vail Town Council.pdf image003.png image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Chris Romer <cromer@vailvalleypartnership.com> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 8:35 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR considerations Please see attached on behalf of Vail Valley Partnership’s board of governors. Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness on this issue. -CR ---- May 17, 2022 - Page 162 of 549 Chris Romer, ACE, IOM President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership [D] 970.477.4016 | [O] 970.476.1000   97 Main Street, Ste. E-201, Edwards, CO 81632    Support. Unite. Lead.  VailValleyPartnership.com • VisitVailValley.com • VailValleyMeansBusiness.com Recognized as National Chamber of the Year in 2016 and 2020 May 17, 2022 - Page 163 of 549 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com Recognized as Chamber of the Year in 2016 and 2020 by the Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members, Vail Valley Partnership is the regional chamber of commerce representing business interests in Eagle County, with over 920 members who collectively represent over 80% of the local workforce. On behalf of Vail Valley Partnership’s board of governors, we appreciate your interest in working to meaningfully address the STR issue and its impact on residential neighborhoods. However, we urge you to not move forward with a one-size-fits-all approach to Short Term Rental (STR) regulations. Specifically, we oppose a per-bedroom STR assessment fee – especially in the resort core areas and for condo-tel properties developed specifically to accommodate short term visitation and to serve our visitor economy. Workforce housing has been identified as the top public policy across the mountain west. We know that housing is a foundational challenge to our community workforce challenges and the livability of the Town of Vail and Eagle County Studies including the Mountain Migration Report and Regional Workforce Housing Report have been conducted in recent years. Many communities have taken a more active role regarding Short Term Rentals (STR). Outside Magazine has a compelling article titled “How to Save a Ski Town” that frames the impacts of short-term rentals in ski town communities. They stress what we already know: this isn’t a local issue. The housing crunch for locals is an issue across the Rocky Mountain West: “it was so hard to find affordable housing in town that there weren’t enough people left to work in town. The headlines popped up all summer long: “Housing in Jackson: Is This a Crisis?” “Ketchum Has Plenty of Available Jobs but Workers Can’t Afford Housing” “Tahoe’s Hiring Crisis Unraveling the Region’s Small Businesses” The question you must answer is straightforward: do you believe that STRs negatively impact workforce housing stock and if so, how can you impact this? Is it appropriate to create a more active regulatory environment for STRs? The answer isn’t straightforward, but the answer certainly is not a per-bedroom fee for all units, regardless of location or the purpose for which the property/unit was built. We believe it is important for the Town of Vail and other regulatory agencies to balance the following goals: Retain long-term rental supply; Protect the integrity and culture of residential neighborhoods; May 17, 2022 - Page 164 of 549 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com Recognized as Chamber of the Year in 2016 and 2020 by the Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives Provide guests with a mix of accommodation options; Respect property rights of current and future STR owners. The proposed per-bedroom fee does not accomplish these goals and is punitive toward our professional property managers. Achieving these goals requires a nuanced and balanced approach. One-size-fits-all solutions will inherently be unequitable to a large segment of the market and are likely to negatively impact both our residential communities AND our tourism economy. We encourage you to explore zoning rather than across-the-board fees. The creation of zoning districts that recognize private property rights while maintaining our visitor bed base and protecting the character of our residential neighborhoods is a possible solution that deserves consideration. Specifically, we encourage you to explore the creation of short-term/tourism district overlays in our traditional resort core areas and other STR properties (such as Simba Run and Vail Racquet Club) with “status quo” STR rules and regulations (ie, no new per-bedroom fees). Non-resort core areas and residential neighborhoods in a newly created residential zoning district could add additional fees (Ouray’s excise tax is worth exploring) with funding earmarked toward workforce housing programs. There are some easy steps to take if the goal of STR regulations is to protect residential neighborhoods (and not become a simple money grab from the government), balance prop erty rights, and maintain our bed base for visitors. We appreciate the requirement of local contacts for all STRs and encourage the required notification on STR listings indicating “rental is located in a residential neighborhood” for non- tourism district/residential rentals. We are supportive of the requirement a business license and STR license, and enforcement of sales tax collection for STR units . The basic requirements being explored by the Town for all units are thoughtful and pragmatic. Professionally managed vacation rentals – especially those in our resort core – are simply not creating or adding to our workforce housing challenges. New fees and taxes on short-term rentals must be managed in an appropriate manner that addresses the issues at hand and does not cause unintended consequences. One-size fits all solutions to this issue are likely to create more problems than they solve. We encourage you to go back to the drawing board to better explore and identify the problem you are attempting to solve with the short-term rental fees and regulations, and to recognize the value and importance that traditional STRs play in our tourism economy. May 17, 2022 - Page 165 of 549 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com Recognized as Chamber of the Year in 2016 and 2020 by the Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives Sincerely, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership May 17, 2022 - Page 166 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Discussion Tomorrow at VTC Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 1:05:19 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Alison Wadey <alisonw@vailchamber.org> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 12:42 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR Discussion Tomorrow at VTC Hello Town Council Members, I hope you each were able to enjoy the wonderful weather, finally, this past weekend. I just wanted to send a quick note to weigh in on your discussion of STR fees and structure going forward. Revising this program and its fees is necessary and will help us as a community track and manage this growing segment of our economy. While we have read and followed along all the discussions and studies surrounding this issue we find most of the proposed ideas are good ones and will have a meaningful and effective impact. However, we do not agree that a per bedroom fee is appropriate given our large population of professionally owned and/or managed lodging properties with many units enrolled on third party May 17, 2022 - Page 167 of 549 platforms. The per bedroom fee seems excessive and punitive for this sector of lodges. The lodges that this will effect the most financially are already providing quality checks and assessments, have registered with the town and been paying sales tax and fees since the beginning, they also are providing lodging to our guests that was meant for them. These lodges are not suitable units for employee housing to help mitigate that issue. I know you received a very detailed letter from Chris Romer and the VVP. That letter outlined how off base the per bedroom fee to be in our lodging community. We agree with all the points made by Chris and the VVP Board. Thank you for tackling this issue and to TOV staff for providing all the data and studies. Please continue to make a plan for STR's going forward but in an effective manner that does not have unintended consequences like exorbitant fees on our Lodging and property managers sectors. Thanks so much! See you all tomorrow Alison Alison C. Wadey Executive Director Vail Chamber & Business Association 241 South Frontage Road Suite 2 Vail, CO 81657 Office: (970) 477-0075 Mobile: (970) 376-1661 www.vailchamber.org Community-Inspired Guest Experience May 17, 2022 - Page 168 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vail Short Term Rental (STR) Regulations - Ordinance #11 - Oppose as Drafted Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 1:51:35 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: John Dawsey <JDawsey@vailresorts.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 10:52 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: John Dawsey <JDawsey@vailresorts.com> Subject: Vail Short Term Rental (STR) Regulations - Ordinance #11 - Oppose as Drafted Dear Town of Vail Council Members, I am the Vice President of Hospitality for Vail Resorts with oversight of our Hotel and Property Management operations in Eagle County. I have oversight of three of Vail’s iconic full-service hotels, The Lodge at Vail, Arrabelle at Vail Square and the Hythe, a Luxury Collection Resort, Vail. Each of these hotels were built with a residential component that operate as Short Term Rental (STR) lodging. Collectively, these hotel/residential complexes represent approximately 600 units and over 1,000 total beds. These hotels were purpose-built within the Vail lodging commercial core to support our tourism infrastructure that is the lifeblood of our economic vitality and delivers a significant tax base for the Town of Vail. On behalf of our professionally managed hotels and vacation rental owners I urge you to not move forward May 17, 2022 - Page 169 of 549 with a one-size fits all approach to Short Term Rental regulation, and specifically oppose a per-bedroom STR assessment fee. It is important to recognize that in addition to the taxes our properties pay for Lodging, Food & Beverage, Meeting & Banquet, Spa and other ancillary amenities, the Lodging bed base contributes an additional 1.4% lodging tax to support marketing and promotion for Vail (VLMD). Our guests contribute to the recently increased .5% TOV sales tax designed to help fund workforce housing initiatives. Collectively, these properties have invested in, and continue to deliver significant employee housing for our workforce (>170 beds). Monies generated from our Short Term Rental residences goes towards funding our employee housing initiatives. I appreciate the Town’s efforts to try to address the STR issue, especially as it relates to the impact it has on Vail’s residential neighborhoods and long-term rental inventory that supports our Town’s culture and Resort workforce. However, adding substantial fees on residences that were never intended for workforce housing or long-term rentals represents a punitive tax on professionally managed lodging designed to support the Town’s economy. Lodging and associated Short Term Rentals in the commercial core certainly generate significantly, if not more than their fair share. This ordinance as drafted is not equitable to address the problem you are trying to solve and instead should focus on zoning and/or other regulatory actions as a means to address STR’s within residential neighborhoods. I encourage you and the Town staff to go back to the drawing board and refocus on the true issue you are trying to solve. Continuing to put the financial burden on professionally managed vacation rentals as a funding mechanism to address these unrelated issues will undoubtedly have unintended consequences and will create more problems than they solve. Sincerely, John DawseyVice President – HospitalityEagle County & Crested ButteO: 970.754-5883 C: 970.331.7938jdawsey@vailresorts.comVail Resorts, Inc. VAILRESORTS® EXPERIENCE OF A LIFETIME The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. May 17, 2022 - Page 170 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: ToV - STR policy meeting tonight 5/17/22 Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:45:04 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Richard Grodahl <rgrodahl1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:23 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: ToV - STR policy meeting tonight 5/17/22 Dear ToV, My family has just become aware of the Town Council Meeting to introduce modifications to existing STR ordinance. I am just becoming aware of the proposal and while I do not know all of the particulars, attempting to fund affordable housing on the backs of home owners will not improve the Vail housing situation. I have owned in Vail for about 14 years. My first trip to Vail as a teenager was in 1979 when my parents took the entire family and 3 ski friends for a Winter Break President’s weekend trip to a rented home in West Vail. The home was rented via an advertisement in the back pages of Sunset Magazine. After the purchase of my home in 2010 and living out of state, realizing our home was sitting empty when we were not using it, we decided to offer it for rent when we were unable to be in Vail. Remembering my family trip decades ago, we were looking for a way to offer our home for rent. We found a local property management company, Gore Creek Priorities ( Now Vacasa). We don’t rent our home often. However, in winter months, we could easily rent our home every day based on demand. We don’t rent as a commercial venture, we rent when demand is high and when our property manager has a qualified, well vetted family staying for a holiday at a premium price. The rental income money has been used to partially fund painting the exterior of the home, replacing the roof and generally to offset ongoing home maintenance costs which are significant in Vail. I see this as a win / win / win / win. The home isn’t sitting empty during times of peak demand, visiting families (like my family in 1979) can enjoy a family ski trip in a mountain home, my property management company Gore Creek Property makes money, I offset some home maintenance costs, ToV receives tax income on the rental fees. Seems very reasonable for everyone. May 17, 2022 - Page 171 of 549 While renting homes has become more visible via the internet and social media. STR’s for 2nd homes and rental homes in unique destination resorts is not new. From my experience, Short Term Rentals for individual’s homes has always been done. To think STR is a new phenomenon now somehow negatively impacting the community is not correct. STR is a simple issue of supply, demand, cost and convenience. This has been ongoing since the time Vail was founded and before. As an owner, there is no reason to rent my property if the fees and expenses were outweigh any benefits. The ToV can come up with any STR fee structure and create any number of restrictions on STR’s but new ordinances will not automatically increase tax revenue to ToV. In fact, the opposite could occur. For me as an owner, and part time resident, exorbitant STR fees and restrictions will cause me to keep the home empty when I’m not using my home. This will lessen availability for accommodations during peak demand like World Cup, Spring Break, Christmas, etc. Costs will go up at resorts during those peak times due to higher demand for fewer properties and fewer rooms. There will not be an increase in long term rentals because for owners like me, I use my home and can’t rent long term. Summary - 1) STR’s have always been in existence 2) Owner’s sometimes offer their empty home for a fee when not in use 3) increasing fees for home owners STR’s will reduce STR availability, increase costs for visitors coming to Vail and have zero impact on housing availability and affordability in Vail and Eagle County 4) While funding affordable housing is a very admirable goal, the belief that existing home owners will somehow pay for new housing projects via increased STR fees is unrealistic The new ordinances appear to be an overreach by the ToV. Significantly increasing STR fees could most likely cause further housing availability and affordability challenges. How is it that the ToV has come to the conclusion that taxing the rental income received by owners is not enough? If there are other issues regarding STR’s , the individual HOA’s at each property or neighborhood can address these concerns via their CC&R’s. ToV STR assumptions are erroneous and short sighted. What will happen to property management companies when owners stop or reduce STR availability for their homes? What will happen to Visitor counts when resorts are full or too costly for out of state families? What impact will this have on local businesses when 2nd homes sit empty? What consideration does the new policy give to an owner who might forgo using their home during peak vacation dates in order to allow a visiting family to rent the home for Spring Break or Christmas? A set of annual fees based on number of rooms or other arbitrary coats don’t make any sense for an owner like me who might rent a few weekends in the winter and summer. What is the impact to the tax assumptions if many owners, like myself, choose to discontinue my property manager and no longer rent short term? I have 3 bedrooms, an annual STR fee greater than my net annual rental income will guarantee my home will not be on the STR list. The Town will receive $0 for my property. Double and triple check your assumptions, the real impact of these new proposed ordinances and fees are not known and most likely inverse to your intent. May 17, 2022 - Page 172 of 549 I am happy to have a discussion with anyone at ToV to share my experiences. Regards, Richard Grodahl 949-212-0059 May 17, 2022 - Page 173 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Short term rentals Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:50:44 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Martha Hockensmith <marthahock@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:33 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Short term rentals I think this is a very bad idea and am very much opposed to it. I hope you do not pass this. Having fees like this and all of the other requirements you are proposing will hurt home owners who depend on some rentals to help pay their expenses. These will be passed on to vacationers. It will hurt the town of Vail in the long run. People will go to other resorts. Thank You, Martha Hockensmith May 17, 2022 - Page 174 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Short-Term / Short Sighted and more Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:51:26 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Craig Carty <cartyce@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 7:15 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: cromer@visitvailvalley.com; Scott Miller <smiller@vaildaily.com> Subject: Short-Term / Short Sighted and more In 2014 my wife and I purchased a small condo within Vail Village. The property had been previously managed by the onsite office for short-term rentals and had a very low occupancy, low revenue, and poor reviews. We invested a small fortune into a complete remodel of the condo which was completed by all local subcontractors and a local general contractor. This endeavor funded the local economy within the Vail Valley. We attracted more guests to our property and to the town of Vail. I believe this resulted positively for all parties. We had more positive exposure to our building and our property during this time and the town enjoyed a greater number of happy guests along with higher sales & tax revenue too. I've been a licensed real estate broker for 40 years, however, more importantly, I take great pride in managing our property myself, taking great care of each and May 17, 2022 - Page 175 of 549 every guest personally. This can be seen with our VRBO reviews on-line and as noted below. 136 Reviews 4.9Wonderful! Reviews Fantastic property 5/5 StayedApr 2022 Brandon Y. Sadly, I experienced the 2017 Town of Vail short term rentals crisis. This ended with units within our building only having to pay $5 or $10 for their annual fee to rent short-term while I needed to pay a much higher annual fee to do the same activity with my unit. This was not right, and It seems that we are on the same unequitable path again now in 2022. This makes no sense at all and does not provide equitable rules. At the very least, keep everyone within the same cost structure and stop playing favorites within the community. I know housing is a problem in the valley and it has been mentioned recently that the town can profit from these fees and somehow this will help the town with the housing problem. I don't believe this is correct thinking for many reasons and hopefully no one in leadership is in this mindset. One last note, we love our property. We also like that we can share it with others to enjoy the great experiences that we have enjoyed over the years. This did bring more paying guests to Vail. There is a zero chance that we would ever consider renting it long term, zero. Our building has zero long-term rentals within it. If dealing with the town becomes too much of a pain, and since my wife and I are now retired, we would more than likely just live there rather than deal with all the created rental non-sense and unfairness. I guess we would then be able to vote there too, which would be nice. Hopefully, others will do the same. It’s becoming very clear this is just over reach by the Town of Vail counsel for misguided reasons. I suggest new leadership is found quickly. Keep the fee structure EQUAL TO ALL and FAIR. Craig Carty 352-359-2929 May 17, 2022 - Page 176 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vote on short term rentals Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:53:11 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: ted rehm <vailcondo@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 6:33 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vote on short term rentals My name if Ted Rehm. I live in Denver and have owned a condo in Vail for over 30 years, which my wife and I use often. I also rent the condo through Airbnb and Vrbo as a short term rental, and have always paid my taxes - even before they were collected and paid directly by airbnb and vrbo. Because of the time I spend with my guests I have always received 5 star reviews, and all my guest have been extremely happy with their visit to Vail. Because of the short term rental plans you are suggesting, I will probably now to turn my unit over to our property management company to handle the rentals in the future. The management company will not spend the time I spend on rentals, they will probably only rent the place about 60% of the time I am able to rent it. This will mean Vail will collect less in occupancy tax, the restaurants will have less guests, and shopping around the village will May 17, 2022 - Page 177 of 549 decline. I understand this one condo will have little impact, but many individuals like myself will go through this exact scenario. Is this the direction you feel is best for the town of Vail? Please consider what you are doing, and crack down on the people that have not been playing by the rules. Please don't penalize the people that have played by the rules for all these years. Regards, Ted Rehm May 17, 2022 - Page 178 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: VRBO New Regulations Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:52:45 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Larry Blivas <lblivas148@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 6:52 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: VRBO New Regulations Town Council of Vail Government, You are making a huge mistake by adopting the proposed STR regulations before you. Just look at the poor results that occurred in hundreds of Cities across the nation when they imposed similar STR Regulations to organizations like VRBO who only produce terrific tax monies for the Cities and Counties around the world. It is essential that you do not regulate but allow STR to continue to occur in the Vail Valley for the future success of our village. If not, we assure you the entire valley will take a huge economic and social downturn from this May 17, 2022 - Page 179 of 549 terrible legislation! Regards, Larry Blivas LBJ Realty LP President/CEO “Investing in your Future” Mobile:310-345-6767 Lblivas148@gmail.com Enjoyeveryday! May 17, 2022 - Page 180 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:36:33 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Becki Vickers <beckivickers@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:35 AM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR Hi! I’m writing to get some clarity on this STR new rules that are on the table? Can you please explain? We established an Air bnb I believe back in 2019. We own both halves of a duplex and preside in one half and rent the other. We short term only because we can’t afford to long term for 6500$ a month to cover the cost of just the mortgage and bills. You would have to pack in 10 people to pay that to make it affordable- which I believe is less desirable for everyone ….us, neighborhood and renters. Therefore, we short term during the peak seasons to maintain it just to break even and pay the bills. We interview every renter to make sure they are a good fit for our property/ neighborhood. The last thing we want to do is be a bad neighbor to anyone. We get nice respectable families that are aware of our rules. We only have two parking spots, so multiple renters doesn’t work as well. We feel as if we are one of the few doing it in the correct manner and are now going to be penalized. Adding additional fees just makes us have to raise our rents and therefore going to have to accept different cliental just to afford the additional amounts- therefore ….more people, more neighborhood impact etc. I think you get the picture here. Hopefully, you see this new fee should it be implied to people doing the right thing!! I totally get the people with off property management can cause problems, but we are not one of those! Thank you Kenny and becki Vickers Sent from my iPhone May 17, 2022 - Page 181 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:37:23 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: meuer <meuer7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:24 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR To whom vit may concern, I am a homeowner in Vail. I rent my home about 2-3 times a year when I don’t want to be among the masses. It seems like double taxation that you are going to tax my bedrooms. I am already paying property taxes. If this bedroom Tax goes through I will not rent my home as it is not worth it, and will not pay the bedroom tax that the council is trying to saddle me with. You will lose the sales tax and the lodging tax that you are currently getting. If Vail needs employee housing, what did the $20 million in previous years go to? Thank you May 17, 2022 - Page 182 of 549 Saundra Meuer Sent from Mail for Windows May 17, 2022 - Page 183 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Comments - Proposed updates to the STR regulations Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:37:40 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Sharon Kendall <sharonrouse@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 4:21 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Comments - Proposed updates to the STR regulations Dear Town Council Members: Be advised that I support increasing all fees and fines for violations for short term rentals – for non- owner occupied units. I suggest owner-occupied STRs that rent for up to 14 days/calendar year pay a $150 registration fee, but no lodging tax (similar to IRS tax rules) Non-owner occupied STRs who rent for 15+ days/calendar year, should in my opinion, pay much higher registrations, including a the proposed fee per bedroom – I suggest per bed. One 2 bd unit in my building advertises it sleeps 6. The unit above mine, 2 bedroom+ loft, advertises it sleeps 8. STR investors are in actuality hotel operators and should pay commercial rates. Currently there is a STR above and below my unit. My family, including young grandchildren have been exposed to May 17, 2022 - Page 184 of 549 marijuana (prohibited by our declaration) and vaping – both known health hazards. We are disturbed by parties, loud music. Vandalism. The STR complaint line is my only defense against these owners! I realize my comments come late. But I would go so far as to prohibit STRs in any home or condominium building without 24/7 onsite management (EXCEPT residential units -- owner-occupied units who rent for 14 or fewer calendar days/year. STR are a serious issue for Vail residents. Franky, I didn’t see it coming. I believe owners should have the right to do as they wish with their properties – until they infringe on the rights of other property owners. STR are hotels – and do not belong in residential neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sharon Kendall 1040 Vail View Dr. Unit 202 Vail CO May 17, 2022 - Page 185 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Short term rentals opinion from homeowner in Eagle Countyh Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:19:36 AM Attachments:Short term rentals in Eagle County[607].docx image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Martha Ann Amarino <marthaann10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:17 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Fw: Short term rentals opinion from homeowner in Eagle Countyh ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Martha Ann Amarino <marthaann10@yahoo.com> To: Martha Ann Amarino <marthaann10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 10:10:02 AM MDT Subject: Short term rentals opinion To the Town of Vail: We are home owners in Eagle County and the attached is our opinion. See attachment. Thanks, Martha Ann Amarino May 17, 2022 - Page 186 of 549 From: Neal Amarino <ntamarino@aol.com> To: Martha Ann Amarino <marthaann10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 09:50:36 AM MDT Subject: Short term rentals copy May 17, 2022 - Page 187 of 549 Short term rentals in Eagle County, Colorado Short term renters are on vacation in a residential neighborhood. The hot tub parties seem to be unrestricted. Many times, they are loud, and messy. My opinion is these outdoor parties should not happen during the dinner hour or after. Residential occupants have lifestyles other than vacationers. It is different from renting a hotel room, etc. Of course, the ideal is to forbid short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods, but if it must happen, then short term renters should live the lifestyle of the neighborhood. Property owner occupied residents have Jobs, school and various commitments that vacationers do not have, yet the short term renters Inflict their vacation lifestyle on the owners who live there. I suppose if this is the trend for Eagle County we should join the renters and just make our private homes open to vacationers. What good is residential zoning if vacationers who have different lifestyles than homeowners, infringe on the owner-occupied homeowners? From pouring hot tub water on the next-door property to filling driveways with drink cans and other debris, owners are negatively impacted. A single-family home may not be as negatively impacted as an attached dwelling, which causes, literally, living with vacationers, their noise, and vacation lifestyle. May 17, 2022 - Page 188 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:23:30 AM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Kelly Meuer <meuer7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:20 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: STR To whom it may concern, The $20 million in funds for the last 5 years, has not resulted in more employee housing units. Why is that ? What about the shops and restaurants or entertainment venues, are they subjected to a room tax? per square footage? Are Vail Associates providing employee housing? Who controls land and building permits in the town and the county? What about the property on the frontage road between Lionshead gondola and the Cascade lift? Can it be used for employee housing? Saundra May 17, 2022 - Page 189 of 549 On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 10:23 AM meuer <meuer7@gmail.com> wrote: To whom vit may concern, I am a homeowner in Vail. I rent my home about 2-3 times a year when I don’t want to be among the masses. It seems like double taxation that you are going to tax my bedrooms. I am already paying property taxes. If this bedroom Tax goes through I will not rent my home as it is not worth it, and will not pay the bedroom tax that the council is trying to saddle me with. You will lose the sales tax and the lodging tax that you are currently getting. If Vail needs employee housing, what did the $20 million in previous years go to? Thank you Saundra Meuer Sent from Mail for Windows May 17, 2022 - Page 190 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:00:32 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Joy JS Guth <joyguth@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:48 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR Dear Members of Vail Town Council, As you prepare to move forward with changes to the short term rental regulations in our town of Vail, I plead for you to consider the many of us residents who live in duplexes in our neighborhoods. Please protect us from our out of state neighbors who have decided to turn their property that we share into a weekly rotating hotel. This experience has stripped what we love about our home and our special neighborhood from us. The peace and beauty of our land, in which we take pride, is now littered with cigarette butts, sprinter vans, and noise pollution. While you can set "rules" for rentals, when the renters change every week, the same mistakes and nuances just occur over and over. If I have to ask my duplex mate if I can paint my door, he should have to obtain agreement from me to turn his front door into a rotating landing pad for vacationers coming to party and destroy our adjoined property. We also ask that any potential new regulations be applied to all duplex owners, May 17, 2022 - Page 191 of 549 and that no properties be "grandfathered in." Urge property owners in residential areas to offer up long term rentals if they need/want the income from a rental. By encouraging long-term rentals, our families and workers in Vail will benefit by being able to obtain housing, and our neighborhoods for the core of this Valley will be preserved. With gratitude, Joy Guth East Vail Resident May 17, 2022 - Page 192 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR Ordinance Concerns Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:00:31 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Matt Ivy <Ivy@vailracquetclub.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:56 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Cc: Stan Zemler <SZemler@vailgov.com> Subject: STR Ordinance Concerns Dear Town Council, In 2014 the Vail Lodging community held a gathering of General Managers from the Town’s leading hotels and condominium lodging properties to discuss concerns with unregulated vacation rentals by owner (RBOs). The upshot of the meeting was a petition provided to council signed by 25 of Vail’s lodging General Managers that included a “draft vacation rental by owner ordinance”. The purpose was to initiate conversations with council and town staff regarding the regulation of RBOs that would level the playing field and legitimize all nightly rentals within the Town. Subsequently, an “STR” ordinance was adopted. May 17, 2022 - Page 193 of 549 The term “STR” is a misnomer In the context of the ordinance, there is a disconnect in lumping Professionally Managed Condominium Lodging Properties together with Rental by Owner units. In a resort community, professionally managed lodging properties function and operate in the same manner as hotels; while RBOs are solitary, individually operated short term rentals with no consistency or management oversight. Yes, they both offer nightly rentals but otherwise it is apples and oranges. The proposed STR ordinance update appears to be driven by continued concerns related to RBOs which are unrelated to professionally managed condominium lodging properties that were built with an intended purpose of offering a resort style lodging experience to guests coming to Vail. Professionally Managed Condominium Lodging Properties do not require STR administration from the Town The costs incurred by the Town to administer and enforce the STR ordinance are a result of RBOs, not professionally managed lodging properties. Our homeowner associations self-regulate short term rentals through our governing documents and well-established internal policies and procedures. Our businesses have consistently operated with high standards to ensure that guest health and safety standards are met. Our rental homeowners are already required to carry adequate insurance and liability insurance of at least $1.0 million. Our 24-hour front desk, maintenance and on-call operations internally handle guest and owner concerns and complaints without involving outside assistance from the Town. In short, professionally managed condominium lodging properties are not the problem and should not be swept up in the effort to control and regulate RBOs. Professionally managed condominium lodges with short term rental programs have not contributed to the current housing crisis As with other lodging properties, the short-term rental program at the Vail Racquet Club Mountain Resort, has not displaced any local employees. Among other reasons, this is because the short-term rental program has stringent quality requirements and long term rental units do not meet these standards. Condominium Lodging Properties provide employee housing At minimum, the larger condominium lodging properties are already part of the housing crisis solution and provide employee housing. In some cases, housing was a requirement of building approval and in others obtaining housing has been a necessary business practice. At the Vail Racquet Club, the EHU requirement by the Town expired more than 20 years ago, yet our Association continued to honor the commitment even when not housing many of our own employees. Providing and maintaining housing has come at a huge ongoing expense to lodging properties. For example, our EHUs, (currently 21) are worth more than $10.0 million with an annual maintenance expense of $50,000. Additionally, on behalf of owners, our rental program has 15 long term rental units on property that are all filled with May 17, 2022 - Page 194 of 549 local employees. The proposed increase in STR administration and per bedroom fees do not recognize the ongoing contributions and commitment of lodging properties in providing and a significant amount of employee housing. Per Bedroom Fees applied to Condominium Lodging Properties will have unintended consequences The memo states that: The main question remaining for Council is to consider a “per- bedroom fee” intended to deter property owners from converting their units to short- term rentals and at the same time raise revenues for the purpose of lessening the influence of STRS on locals housing. Lodging properties cannot continue to operate as they do now if a per bedroom fee is charged. At our property, a 30% mitigation fee would equal an expense of approximately $360,000 which our breakeven operation could not absorb; it would likely cease its operations on behalf of our homeowners and to the detriment of the town. On the other hand, if the per bedroom fee is charged back to individual owners a significant number of them will discontinue renting their units. Our short-term rental program is voluntary and on average a short-term rental unit nets $15,600, and would be charged $3,600 in per bedroom fees; roughly a 23% “tax” charged by the Town. This would indeed deter them from renting but would not add one single local housing unit; owners will find greater value in only using their units themselves. RBOs need to pay their fair share Lodging properties currently pay more than their fair share toward internally regulating their short-term rentals and providing employee housing. How many RBOs are doing the same? If the goal of the proposed STR ordinance is to offset the Town’s STR administration and regulation enforcement expenses, and funding employee housing lost by the RBO phenomenon, then shouldn’t the associated costs be applied only to the RBOs that are the root source of the expenses? Simply put, the professionally managed condominium lodging community should not be dragged into an updated STR ordinance that seeks to resolve Rental by Owner problems. Please table this Ordinance In the past, the Lodging Community has been involved in “work sessions” or focus groups to voice our opinions and assist in creating solutions to the short-term rental issues. That has not been the case during this recent STR ordinance process. Please table this ordinance in its current form. The lodging community would welcome the opportunity to again be of assistance in finding reasonable solutions to the STR problems. May 17, 2022 - Page 195 of 549 Thank you for your consideration, Matt Ivy General Manager Matt Ivy General Manager (970) 476-4233 WWW.VailRacquetClub.com May 17, 2022 - Page 196 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Comment on proposed STR regulations and fees Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:12:31 PM Attachments:image001.png image007.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: McCleary, Bob <bob.mccleary@manorvail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:41 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Comment on proposed STR regulations and fees Dear Town Council- I have been following the discussions around proposed changes to the short term rental regulations with some interest and concern. I note that the $150 per unit registration fee is intended to cover administrative costs for enforcement of STR activity, cover staff time for finance, fire and code enforcement and legal costs. Manor Vail Lodge, and I presume other short term rental hotels, already comply with all of the town’s code, fire, and safety requirements. We police ourselves, properly collect and distribute taxes, follow all STR regulations- in fact, ours are more stringent-and don’t need monitoring as we are self-contained. Therefore, you are asking us to pay more for what we already do and the town is not in a position to help or enhance our operations. Therefore, this is an unnecessary and overly burdensome fee increase. We are being required to fund solutions to a problem that we are not contributing to. May 17, 2022 - Page 197 of 549 The need for additional housing is real and, as the reports note, are exacerbated by the VRBO/Airbnb short term rentals of otherwise potentially long term housing units. However, Manor Vail has never been a long term housing option for locals so the increase in residential STR’s is not due to any change at Manor Vail. Like all businesses, Manor Vail is challenged in finding and keeping good staff, and the housing shortage is a big part of that. However, through our short term rental program, we added some on site housing in 2008, and we provide housing and housing assistance as needed for our staff. These initiatives are funded by our short term rental owners. Our owners are paying their fair share and we are doing what we need to take care of our business. Asking owners to pay additional fees to support other businesses who don’t or won’t make similar contributions is wrong. Our rental program is voluntary and convincing owners to rent their units is becoming more challenging. Most of our owners have long since paid for their property and have reached the life stage where they are questioning the merits of renting as opposed to having it always available for personal use. This has led to a 10% reduction in rental inventory over the past several years. Adding onerous and punitive fees for the privilege of continuing to rent will drive more units out, and that does not help the community cause in any way. The report supporting the proposed fee increases cite concerns about changing characteristics in residential areas and there may be some merit in that, but the characteristics in and around Manor Vail have not changed. For over 45 years we have not changed our business or our focus. Manor Vail has been a short term rental/hotel operation that has proudly been engaged in, and supportive of, the town and the local organizations that make Vail special. Our owners feel strongly that they are making extraordinary contributions and they have always been happy to do so. Please carefully consider the potential ramifications of discouraging what has historically been a well-regulated, successful short term rental practice in the community to gain control over a random and variable series of issues. There has to be a way to tackle the legitimate issues the town is faced with in a way that puts the onus where the problems have originated, and not in a one size fits all set of regulations. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Bob McCleary, CHA General Manager Phone: 970.476.5000595 Vail Valley Drive • Vail CO 81657 Web: www.manorvail.comEmail: bob.mccleary@manorvail.com May 17, 2022 - Page 198 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Vail Board of REALTORS Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:35:23 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image008.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Amy Reid <areid@vbr.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 2:26 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Vail Board of REALTORS Dear Council Members: The Vail Board of REALTORS has previously stated its position regarding Short-Term Rental Regulations being considered by the Town of Vail. We are aware of the presentation of the draft ordinance being presented today. I wanted it to be clear that the Vail Board of REALTORS does not have any position on the draft ordinance and any real estate professional expressing an opinion on the draft tonight is expressing their own personal opinion and not the position of the Vail Board of REALTORS. The Vail Board of REALTORS will not have anyone representing the organization at tonight’s meeting, so no statement should be construed as that of the Vail Board of REALTORS. The May 17, 2022 - Page 199 of 549 REALTOR organization supports the efforts of the Town of Vail in finding solutions to the housing needs. Our position on this issue remains the same as it did from our April 4th letter: April 4, 2022 Vail Town Council 75 S Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 VIA EMAIL Dear Council Members: The Vail Board of REALTORS absolutely agrees and supports the efforts, including the most recent study conducted by the Town of Vail and its consultants, to help identify potential solutions to our housing challenges. However, we are eager to find solutions that do not infringe upon or change the private property rights of our community’s current or future homeowners. To be clear, the current discussion around regulations, fines and limiting registrations for short-term rentals in our market as a solution is nothing more than an infringement on private property rights. The proposed solutions are highly speculative and unproven in other communities around the country. If implemented, the most likely result is simply more strain on the local housing market. Simply put, short-term rentals are not the cause of our problems. We believe further discussion around this issue is necessary for our business and community leaders along with elected officials to find creative solutions to increase the supply of diverse housing for our growing market. We do not have a short-term rental problem; we have a housing supply problem. A healthier housing market is only going to be developed by creating and implementing innovative solutions that increase the supply of diverse housing products. We have a great example of a creative solution in the Miller Ranch Development. Our problem has been and remains the lack of a diverse range of housing supply. While the supply shortage is overwhelming in its scale and overall impact on our community, we know that it will not correct itself in traditional real estate cycles and, the longer we sit back and do nothing, the deeper the damage to our economy. There are a wide range of additional solutions to our affordability/accessibility needs that must be explored and collectively, can help us achieve positive, long-term results and maintain the integrity of the entire community. Those solutions may include but are not limited to appropriate and targeted homeowner incentives, re-evaluating fees and licensing structures, and the easing of trade, May 17, 2022 - Page 200 of 549 labor, finance and land-use issues. Vail REALTORS® and those we represent are eager to be a part of the conversations and solutions to our housing challenges as we work collaboratively to find the answers to our community’s housing makeup. It is critical we change the outlook from financial and social instability to economic growth built upon a solid foundation in the decades ahead. Sincerely, Vail Board of REALTORS Amy Reid Association Executive Vail Board of REALTORS® Vail Multi-List Service, Inc. Vail Board of REALTORS® Foundation email: areid@vbr.net Direct: 970-766-1029 Office: 970-766-1028 0275 Main Street G004 Edwards CO, 81632 www.vbr.net May 17, 2022 - Page 201 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Public Comment for first reading of Ordinance 11 - short term rental regulations Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 5:39:13 PM Attachments:image004.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: Alicia Gresley <AGresley@vailresorts.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:43 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Public Comment for first reading of Ordinance 11 - short term rental regulations Hello Vail Town Council – Firstly thank you for your time and focus on the needs of the Vail community. With various stakeholders all contributing to the town’s ability to thrive, all aspects of town management and strategic planning are complex and layered. I am writing today in regards to the first reading of Ordinance 11 at tonight’s council meeting seeking to modify the town’s short term rental regulations. As someone who has been employed in the short term rental/property management/vacation rental industry in Eagle County for over 13 years, I have seen the industry grow exponentially and evolve without clear guidance or regulation, leading it to operate in a slightly wild west fashion. I do May 17, 2022 - Page 202 of 549 agree that some form of regulation needs to be implemented and should have a focus on the needs of the community, the residents, guests, environment and businesses. Whilst the intention of the ordinance and the recommendations made by Economic Planning Systems and RRC & Associates makes sense from a blanket policy approach it does not, in my opinion, speak to the unique story of Vail and how all the various moving parts contribute to our success; past, present and future. My concern is that if this ordinance passes in its entirety how it is written with high per bedroom fees across all lodging classified as short term rental (technically less than 30 days), the good intentions will be muddied by unintended consequences. Potential unintended consequences: Small property management companies who have fought to stay afloat during these difficult past couple of years; who have worked to provide for their small employee bases and who are often doing most of the operations themselves will be under threat of going out of business. Why are they being punished for following the rules, contributing to the community and always making the effort to work with the town? Some owners of condos and homes in the core resort areas of Vail Village and Lionshead will simply decide to remove their homes from rental programs and they will sit empty. This leaves sales and lodging tax $$ on the table and less inventory for guests to book. The reality is residences in the village core will not suddenly become long term rental housing for workers. It never has and I don’t foresee an owner opening up their $10 million home for this purpose. What may happen is they choose to rent long term to wealthy guests (this has become a trend since COVID) who are willing to pay high amounts for a 2 – 3 month stay and then you miss out on all that tax revenue short term rental guests would be providing. What happens in 2 or 3 years’ time when the council is petitioned to increase the per bedroom rates? Is there a cap or opportunity to reassess once you see the impacts? From what I read there is no data on how many fines have been issued, how many complaints received, where the $$ will be spent (besides contributing to a housing fund) and how it may support local businesses who are the ones who likely need housing for their employees. The Lodging community and guests are contributing to the town funds via the sales and lodging (which I saw was up 44% YOY at Dec 27, 2021) taxes with an addition of the .5% sales tax increase voted on and approved in the November election; why is it only this arm of business who is responsible for the housing crisis and its funding? There is a risk of alienating many who have been contributing. This is where your input, experience and legacy comes in. You have the opportunity to write this story to set the path for the industry’s future and show that Vail is a leader in addressing the issues and creating resolutions. Instead of just approving a blanket ordinance that doesn’t take in to consideration the many facets of the resort industry and the surrounding neighborhoods, I recommend going back to the drawing board and building a plan that will allow the community to thrive. I ask that you: 1. Say yes to a STR license and the increased fee; the $5 and $10 is nominal and most other licenses in resort areas are in the $200 - $300 (could possibly be slightly higher) and it will May 17, 2022 - Page 203 of 549 hopefully allow you to pay Matthew VanEyll more as he has been doing a great job and always very helpful when I’ve needed his assistance. It will also hold ALL property managers, homeowners who have a STR and guests visiting accountable to the good neighborhood guidelines. If you do approve this I also recommend you hold your staff and/or MuniRes accountable to reporting back on the program, how its working and evaluating if its having an impact on housing availability. 2. Looking to similar resort/tourism towns and their councils and understand the programs they have implemented to provide for all stakeholders. This may include specific resort zoning areas and residential areas, offering incentives to owners to rent at least one season short term and one season long term, continuing with the deed restriction program that seems to be working well. I will also note I appreciate the transparency in posting the letter to Vail Resorts and the intention of collaboration on housing. I’ll even help you out with a few examples: a. City of Honolulu b. San Diego c. Tahoe 3. Say NO to a per bedroom fee, especially the recommended $1800 per bedroom. The recommendation has a maximum of $5900 or so, how does that make sense for the 4/5/6 bedroom homes or condos? At $1800 per bedroom that would make it $7,200 - $11,000 a year if calculated accurately. Also the report states “The basis of this fee is therefore the gap between what employees can afford and the cost to purchase an attached home in Vail”. Does this mean that the fee should cover the difference between what employees are making and their ability to purchase a home in the Town of Vail? That is unrealistic in my opinion and the fact is even with an attainable housing build like Chamonix, the price of a home in Vail is unattainable for most service workers. Simply put there is not enough data or story behind this fee to make sense for the complexities of the lodging industry in the Town of Vail. Thank you for your time and I wish you the best in your decision making process. Kind regards, Alicia Gresley, CMCA Business Development Manager Vail and Beaver Creek Resort Properties Direct: 970-754-2736 Cell: 970-306-1899 agresley@vailresorts.com Vail Property Management Beaver Creek Property Management VAILRESORTS® May 17, 2022 - Page 204 of 549 EXPERIENCE OF A LIFETIME The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. May 17, 2022 - Page 205 of 549 From:Patty McKenny To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: STR ordinance first reading Date:Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:20:58 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Patty McKenny Assistant Town Manager Town of Vail 970.479.2113 vailgov.com From: Patty McKenny Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:21 AM To: Kathleen Halloran <KHalloran@vailgov.com> Cc: Tammy Nagel <TNagel@vailgov.com> Subject: FW: STR ordinance first reading FYI: Patty McKenny Assistant Town Manager Town of Vail 970.479.2113 vailgov.com From: Steven J. Slater <slater.steven.j@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 8:33 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: STR ordinance first reading May 17, 2022 - Page 206 of 549 Thank you for granting me time to speak at tonight’s council meeting! To be fair, for the past few years we have felt that TOV has been railing against STR. While we are thankful that the motion tonight did not include the bedroom tax, it struck me that the council has been addressing real or perceived criticisms of STR. What I heard tonight, quite clearly, was that the council is wrestling with a number of issues related to housing and funding for which along the way STR became a catchall solution. I’d highly recommend that instead of moving a half baked ordinance forward that the council take a step back and decide what issues it is really trying to solve. I also believe that based on my experience it is far better to advance the issues that involve a wider population, through a committee that represents the various constituencies. So I urge the council to shelve any new or advancing ordinances around this very sensitive and potentially complex issue by going through steps that include community involvement. Thank you again. Steven Slater Breakaway West Board Member -- Best regards, Steven J. Slater 240-401-7794 May 17, 2022 - Page 207 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Review and A pprove Recommended S ummer P arking Program 2022 P RE S E NT E R(S ): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation, and S tephanie K ashiwa, Parking Operations Manager AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: P rovide direction to the staff regarding the recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program to include: Direct staff to modify the paid overnight fee program put in place during the summers of 2018, 2019 and 2021, with the elimination of the Hotel, Condo free voucher program. S et the overnight fee associated with the program. B AC K G RO UND: The purpose of this item is to: P rovide Town Council the Parking recommendation for the S ummer 2022 Parking P rogram Request Town Council approve the S ummer 2022 Parking P rogram S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: Staff recommends the Town Council approve the staff recommendations and overnight fee for the Summer 2022 P arking Program. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memo Public Comment May 17, 2022 - Page 208 of 549 1 TO: Vail Town Council FROM Greg Hall, Director of Public Works and Transportation Stephanie Kashiwa Parking Operations Manager DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Staff Recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to:  Provide Town Council the Parking recommendation for the Summer 2022 Parking Program  Request Town Council approve the Summer 2022 Parking Program II. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail staff in the past have met with the Parking and Transportation Task Force to make a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the summer parking program. Due to logistics of creating a new task force and finding a time which would work with a majority of the task force members, the first meeting is now scheduled for May 24th and the subsequent Council meeting to hear any recommendation would be June 7th. The second issue affecting the summer parking program this year is the changeover to a new parking system. The parking system changeover provides opportunities, however there are certain components of the previous program that cannot be duplicated. Mainly previous pass holder’s physical passes will not be able to be used for access to the new system, but a new access credential can be created through an online portal and verification process. The opportunity lies in an online portal where access credentials can be created, distributed, and maintained for easier use by both the town staff and the access credential user. There are issues which duplicating the previous summer parking program with this summer system continue to be problematic unless further addressed. These being having an equitable and financially auditable system of the various overnight voucher users. The coordination of hotel/condo vouchers on a daily basis is a constant task which requires significant staff time. The town anticipates being understaffed in parking operations this summer. In addition, the total value of the voucher system for a select few properties is nearing $300,000. The staff would like the council to consider a modified overnight program, which could be implemented this year. The goals would be similar but, may be more equitable. The May 17, 2022 - Page 209 of 549 2 modified program allows for the features of our new parking system to be tested during the summer with a limited volume of users before next winter which is critical to a successful transition. The adopted goal of the Town of Vail for parking during the summer is to provide a parking program in which all but 15 days of overflow parking occur. Summer 2021 there were 8 days of overflow parking, Summer 2019 there were 16 days of overflow parking. The overnight program the three previous years was successful in reducing the number of vehicles parked overnight in the structures by half to increase daytime capacity by freeing up 100 to 200 parking spaces per night. The 2021 summer overnight program included the following components:  An overnight fee of $35 which was charged for vehicles in the structure during the period of 4 AM to 5 AM.  Exceptions were granted for nearby hotels/condos with little to no on-site parking. Vouchers were distributed to the properties and provided for guests to exit.  Exceptions were made for employees of village businesses, including Vail Health, whose overnight shifts required them to occupy the structures during these times. Parking passes were used for those employees.  The policy of free exit for users who choose safe travel arrangements to get home and then return by 11 AM the following day to retrieve their vehicle administered through the Welcome Centers was maintained.  Parking vouchers were made available to hotels hosting large group business that caused overflow on-site parking circumstances.  Those who purchased parking passes for the winter season were encouraged to use their pass during the summer for ease of entry/exit.  The program was implemented from Memorial Day weekend through the end of September. III. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS SUMMER 2022 In reviewing the previous summer programs and looking ahead to what can be implemented, the following thoughts were discussed.  The current free voucher system for eligible properties needs to be reevaluated.  The impact of a change from the previous free voucher system on these properties should be considered while reducing or eliminating the system.  The introduction of a pass to offset the financial burden of owners of condos who previously received complimentary parking passes should be considered.  The greater than 72-hour enforcement of Red Sandstone Garage use may be simplified.  The Red Sandstone Parking Garage provides 120 additional spaces every day and up to 160 spaces from mid-June to early August (summer break) and other non- school days outside of the summer break. This is in addition to the town’s supply of West Vail parking both near Safeway and West of Fire Station 3.  The oversized/overnight parking area in West Vail was also considered to evaluate how we can better provide for our summer guests. May 17, 2022 - Page 210 of 549 3 In reviewing various options, the staff recommends the following changes to the summer program. Staff has notified those properties who qualified for the program previously of the proposed change and the discussion to take place this evening. In addition, staff has reached out to meet with the greatest volume users of the program. IV. RECOMMENDED SUMMERER 2022 PARKING PROGRAM  Summer paid overnight parking begins 6/13 after Go Pro due to the timing of the installation of the new system for the same time period of 4 AM to 5 AM. This also allows bookings which are more typically 30 days out to be notified of the new program. o Allow for town operations to have all Lionshead and Vail Village entry/exit & cashier stations (less the parking office) & Pay on Foot stations installed. We could also provide adequate training on the new system to parking operation staff to promote a better customer service experience. o Last year, town revenue was about $14,000from Memorial Day through GoPro.  Consider an overnight rate for Lionshead and Vail Village parking structures of $20- $25  Red Sandstone Structure rate for the first 72 hours is free after that the rate should match the rate of the Lionshead and Vail Village $20-$25/night.  Oversized/Overnight parking rate of $25/night in the West Vail location. o Raise the max stay from 3 days to 5-days.  Free overnight employee parking pass available with a verification process.  Free summer parking pass for Winter 2021/2022 Gold/Silver/Blue pass holders with a verification process – no guaranteed spot  New $500 pass for summer overnight parking valid in Lionshead, Vail Village and Red Sandstone School Structures which would require verification of ownership in previous voucher designated areas.  Continue the safe travel home overnight exemption  No hotel/condo voucher program – lowered nightly rate to accommodate the cost impact. V. ACTION REQUESTED May 17, 2022 - Page 211 of 549 4 Provide direction to the staff regarding the recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program to include:  Direct staff to modify the paid overnight fee program put in place during the summers of 2018, 2019 and 2021, with the elimination of the Hotel, Condo free voucher program.  Set the overnight fee associated with the program. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council approve the staff recommendations and overnight fee for the Summer 2022 Parking Program. May 17, 2022 - Page 212 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Summer Parking Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 9:20:45 AM Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com -----Original Message----- From: Alohajohn1 <alohajohn1@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 11:43 AM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Summer Parking I am a full time resident living in East Vail. I highly recommend that the Town of Vail charge for Summer Parking. Summer in Vail is becoming as popular as Winter with a significant increase in visitors seen in the past few years. There is no reason that we should not be charging for parking instead of forging the revenue parking creates and I don’t believe that charging for parking will result in less visitor traffic. Let’s do something to create revenue rather than always looking for a way to spend our revenue! We should be charging rates comparable to the Winter Season rates. John Schapperle May 17, 2022 - Page 213 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Summer Parking Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:38:02 AM Attachments:parkingmemo_051722.pdf image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: The Clemens Family <4clemens@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 3:33 PM To: Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>; Stephanie Kashiwa <SKashiwa@vailgov.com>; PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com>; Greg Hall <GHall@vailgov.com> Cc: Fabio Acosta <facosta@eastwest.com> Subject: Summer Parking Hi All- First, thank you for your service! I would like you to consider continuing the free overnight parking for residents who live nearby and have no other options. We purchased our place in 1988 when things were certainly much different. We had no parking at Vail Core Condos but with the Parking Structure across the street it was not a problem. But as parking rates were instituted and kept going up it affected our winter guests and us personally. Due to the high current rates, I now usually take a van up to Vail in the winter and May 17, 2022 - Page 214 of 549 recommend that to others. In the summer we usually come out for a longer period of time to get things done at our condo. This necessitates many trips and unloading the car numerous times, day and night. Summer was free until a few years ago. Then you started charging and added a hefty fee for overnight parking allegedly due to people storing their cars in the Structure. I get it. But it appears that now you want to charge just to charge. Summer guests being charged during the day may make some sense as a revenue source due to the day visitors. Charging residents who have no other parking option is just another tax. It is not taking away from other revenue, or preventing a guest from visiting. Based on this I hope you will reconsider this action or institute an alternative option. https://vail.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/AttachmentViewer.ashx? AttachmentID=18637&ItemID=17526 Vince Clemens (847) 732-2322 May 17, 2022 - Page 215 of 549 1 TO: Vail Town Council FROM Greg Hall, Director of Public Works and Transportation Stephanie Kashiwa Parking Operations Manager DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Staff Recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to:  Provide Town Council the Parking recommendation for the Summer 2022 Parking Program  Request Town Council approve the Summer 2022 Parking Program II. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail staff in the past have met with the Parking and Transportation Task Force to make a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the summer parking program. Due to logistics of creating a new task force and finding a time which would work with a majority of the task force members, the first meeting is now scheduled for May 24th and the subsequent Council meeting to hear any recommendation would be June 7th. The second issue affecting the summer parking program this year is the changeover to a new parking system. The parking system changeover provides opportunities, however there are certain components of the previous program that cannot be duplicated. Mainly previous pass holder’s physical passes will not be able to be used for access to the new system, but a new access credential can be created through an online portal and verification process. The opportunity lies in an online portal where access credentials can be created, distributed, and maintained for easier use by both the town staff and the access credential user. There are issues which duplicating the previous summer parking program with this summer system continue to be problematic unless further addressed. These being having an equitable and financially auditable system of the various overnight voucher users. The coordination of hotel/condo vouchers on a daily basis is a constant task which requires significant staff time. The town anticipates being understaffed in parking operations this summer. In addition, the total value of the voucher system for a select few properties is nearing $300,000. The staff would like the council to consider a modified overnight program, which could be implemented this year. The goals would be similar but, may be more equitable. The May 17, 2022 - Page 216 of 549 2 modified program allows for the features of our new parking system to be tested during the summer with a limited volume of users before next winter which is critical to a successful transition. The adopted goal of the Town of Vail for parking during the summer is to provide a parking program in which all but 15 days of overflow parking occur. Summer 2021 there were 8 days of overflow parking, Summer 2019 there were 16 days of overflow parking. The overnight program the three previous years was successful in reducing the number of vehicles parked overnight in the structures by half to increase daytime capacity by freeing up 100 to 200 parking spaces per night. The 2021 summer overnight program included the following components:  An overnight fee of $35 which was charged for vehicles in the structure during the period of 4 AM to 5 AM.  Exceptions were granted for nearby hotels/condos with little to no on-site parking. Vouchers were distributed to the properties and provided for guests to exit.  Exceptions were made for employees of village businesses, including Vail Health, whose overnight shifts required them to occupy the structures during these times. Parking passes were used for those employees.  The policy of free exit for users who choose safe travel arrangements to get home and then return by 11 AM the following day to retrieve their vehicle administered through the Welcome Centers was maintained.  Parking vouchers were made available to hotels hosting large group business that caused overflow on-site parking circumstances.  Those who purchased parking passes for the winter season were encouraged to use their pass during the summer for ease of entry/exit.  The program was implemented from Memorial Day weekend through the end of September. III. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS SUMMER 2022 In reviewing the previous summer programs and looking ahead to what can be implemented, the following thoughts were discussed.  The current free voucher system for eligible properties needs to be reevaluated.  The impact of a change from the previous free voucher system on these properties should be considered while reducing or eliminating the system.  The introduction of a pass to offset the financial burden of owners of condos who previously received complimentary parking passes should be considered.  The greater than 72-hour enforcement of Red Sandstone Garage use may be simplified.  The Red Sandstone Parking Garage provides 120 additional spaces every day and up to 160 spaces from mid-June to early August (summer break) and other non- school days outside of the summer break. This is in addition to the town’s supply of West Vail parking both near Safeway and West of Fire Station 3.  The oversized/overnight parking area in West Vail was also considered to evaluate how we can better provide for our summer guests. May 17, 2022 - Page 217 of 549 3 In reviewing various options, the staff recommends the following changes to the summer program. Staff has notified those properties who qualified for the program previously of the proposed change and the discussion to take place this evening. In addition, staff has reached out to meet with the greatest volume users of the program. IV. RECOMMENDED SUMMERER 2022 PARKING PROGRAM  Summer paid overnight parking begins 6/13 after Go Pro due to the timing of the installation of the new system for the same time period of 4 AM to 5 AM. This also allows bookings which are more typically 30 days out to be notified of the new program. o Allow for town operations to have all Lionshead and Vail Village entry/exit & cashier stations (less the parking office) & Pay on Foot stations installed. We could also provide adequate training on the new system to parking operation staff to promote a better customer service experience. o Last year, town revenue was about $14,000from Memorial Day through GoPro.  Consider an overnight rate for Lionshead and Vail Village parking structures of $20- $25  Red Sandstone Structure rate for the first 72 hours is free after that the rate should match the rate of the Lionshead and Vail Village $20-$25/night.  Oversized/Overnight parking rate of $25/night in the West Vail location. o Raise the max stay from 3 days to 5-days.  Free overnight employee parking pass available with a verification process.  Free summer parking pass for Winter 2021/2022 Gold/Silver/Blue pass holders with a verification process – no guaranteed spot  New $500 pass for summer overnight parking valid in Lionshead, Vail Village and Red Sandstone School Structures which would require verification of ownership in previous voucher designated areas.  Continue the safe travel home overnight exemption  No hotel/condo voucher program – lowered nightly rate to accommodate the cost impact. V. ACTION REQUESTED May 17, 2022 - Page 218 of 549 4 Provide direction to the staff regarding the recommended Summer 2022 Parking Program to include:  Direct staff to modify the paid overnight fee program put in place during the summers of 2018, 2019 and 2021, with the elimination of the Hotel, Condo free voucher program.  Set the overnight fee associated with the program. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council approve the staff recommendations and overnight fee for the Summer 2022 Parking Program. May 17, 2022 - Page 219 of 549 From:Tammy Nagel To:Stephanie Bibbens Subject:FW: Summer Parking Date:Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:39:16 PM Attachments:image002.png Tammy Nagel Town Clerk 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2136 vailgov.com From: sarah valente <sarahbeyondwords@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 3:16 PM To: PublicInputTownCouncil <publicinput.vailtowncouncil@vailgov.com> Subject: Summer Parking Greetings, In advance of your review of Vail's 2022 summer parking, I would like to weigh-in. I am a summer resident who rents the same condominium at 225 Wall Street every summer. Being located in the very heart of the Vail Village pedestrian zone, my rental condo has no parking. May 17, 2022 - Page 220 of 549 It would be prohibitively expensive for me to pay a daily overnight parking fee. In the past, I have been able to obtain a visitors' pass, which allowed me to use the Vail Village structure without a daily fee. Without this financial help, it is doubtful that I could justify spending my summers in Vail. I am not a freeloader. I am active as a volunteer at Bravo! and Vail Dance and am a member of the Vail Jazz Board of Directors. I like to think I contribute value to the community every summer. I would be happy to purchase a $500 seasonal pass that would allow me fee-free access to the garage. However, your proposed overnight fee to the cost of my visit would add $2,000 or more to the price of my Vail summers; I simply cannot afford that. Please consider my position; I know I am not alone. Thank you for your compassion and your help. Sarah Valente Kettler -- Sarah Valente BEYOND WORDS: Copywriting and More! 202-494-0647 May 17, 2022 - Page 221 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 approving a I ntergovernmental Agreement between T he Towns of Avon. E agle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail E agle County and B eaver Creek Metro District with the intent to agree to form a Regional Transit A gency P RE S E NT E R(S ): Greg Hall Director of Public Works and Transportation AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: Conduct the second of two statutory public hearings on the formation of the Regional Transit A uthority and consider Resolution No.25 S eries of 2022 approving an I ntergovernmental A greement between T he Towns of Avon. E agle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail Eagle County and Beaver Creek Metro District B AC K G RO UND: On May 3, the first of two mandatory public hearings was conducted by the Vail Town Council concerning the approval of an I ntergovernmental Agreement with the intent to form a regional transportation authority within Eagle County. T he Agreement will need to be amended prior to approving the the specific formation and funding ballot to be placed on the November General E lection for the voters of Vail to consider. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove Resolution No. 25 S eries of 2022 approving an I ntergovernmental Agreement between The Towns of Avon. Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff and Vail Eagle County and Beaver Creek Metro District with the intent to agree to form a Regional Transit Agency and place ballots for the Vail electorate to form and fund the RTA in the upcoming November General Election. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memo Resolution No. 25, Series 2022 IG A May 17, 2022 - Page 222 of 549 To: Town Council From: Greg Hall, Department of Public Works, Stan Zemler Interim Town Manager Date: May 17, 2022 Subject: Regional Transportation Authority Public Hearing and Resolution No. 25, Series of 2022 regarding an Intergovernmental Agreement I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to conduct the second of two public hearings regarding an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to form a Regional Transportation Authority. The actions of the council agenda include:  Conduct a public hearing to receive input on the Intergovernmental Agreement  Provide Town Council input on the Intergovernmental Agreement,  Take action on Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 regarding the IGA. II. BACKGROUND On 9/7/21, the Vail Town Council approved Resolution Number 40 of 2021 authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Understanding, establishing a Regional Transit Authority Formation Committee the (“MOU”) was the culmination of efforts over the last year at the Mayors and Managers meetings and the efforts of an Ad Hoc Regional Transit Optimization Committee that was formed out of a Mayors and Managers Meeting. The MOU provided an overview and background regarding the efforts needed to pursue a potential regional transit authority (“RTA”) to serve the Eagle River Valley. . The RTA Formation Committee as outlined in the MOU is composed of one representative of Eagle County and each municipality in Eagle County (not including Basalt) as well as the addition of Beaver Creek Metro District. Barry Davis has been the Town of Vail’s representative on the formation committee. The government entities involved as well as the business community and nonprofit partners have joined together to consider the formation of a Regional Transportation Authority to enhance and expand transit and transportation services for our residents, businesses and visitors. An RTA is a public entity that allows local governments— including counties, cities, towns and metro districts—to work together to address regional transportation issues. RTAs are governed by a board of appointed elected officials representing the partner governments and must follow open meeting and fiscal accountability and transparency laws. RTAs must seek voter approval to collect tax May 17, 2022 - Page 223 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 revenue to provide transportation services, which may include transit, air, roadway and other services. Meetings have taken place to review information, identify details and questions to address, provide input on the community stakeholder process, and ultimately provide direction on an RTA to be referred to voters. As part of the formal process of setting up an RTA as defined by state statues, the local governments involved in establishing the RTA must work together to create an IGA. The IGA is a legal document that sets forth the governance, service goals, and other key operating provisions of the RTA. The IGA must be agreed upon by the elected Councils and Boards in each community. Ultimately, voters must agree to the formation of the RTA and any taxing or bonding requests made to provide funding for the RTA’s services and operations. The IGA approval process requires two separate public hearings to be held in each jurisdiction considering adopting the IGA. The public hearings will provide details about the proposed RTA and the draft IGA for the creation of the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority, and feedback from the Council and the public will be shared with the RTA formation committee to help address local community needs and concerns. The Vail Town Council conducted the first of two public hearings on May 3, 2022. An amendment to the IGA is anticipated later this summer to refine language as the formation committee continues their work and more specifically regarding the Town of Vail ballot language. III. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL  Open the public hearing regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement to form a Regional Transportation Authority  Seek public comment on the IGA during the public hearing  Provide Town Council input on the IGA  Town Council take action on Resolution No.25, Series of 2022, approving the IGA IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing allowing public comment on the draft IGA as well as provide Town Council input on the draft IGA. Approve Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 regarding the IGA V. ATTACHMENTS a. Resolution No. 25 Series of 2022 b. Intergovernmental Agreement to form a Regional Transportation Authority May 17, 2022 - Page 224 of 549 5/13/2022 \\FILESERVER2019\REDIRECTED$\SBIBBENS\DESKTOP\RTA-R050622 (002).DOCX RESOLUTION NO. 25 SERIES 2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL OF THE TOWN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE EAGLE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Authority Law, C.R.S. § 43-4-601, et seq., (the "RTA Law"), authorizes Colorado counties and municipalities to establish regional transportation authorities ("RTAs") to finance, construct, operate and maintain regional transportation systems; WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-2-201, et seq., and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution, governments may enter into intergovernmental agreements to provide for the joint exercise of any legally authorized function, service, or facility, including the establishment of a separate legal entity; WHEREAS, enhancing regional transportation services for residents, businesses and visitors is a crucial step in meeting the Town's workforce, economic and climate goals; WHEREAS, creation of an RTA is a desirable way to plan, finance, implement, and operate a regional public transportation system that better meets the Town's needs; WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement among Beaver Creek Metropolitan District, the Town of Avon, Eagle County, the Town of Eagle, the Town of Gypsum, the Town of Minturn, the Town of Red Cliff, and the Town of Vail, to establish the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority as an RTA (the "IGA"); WHEREAS, the Town Council supports the collaborative approach memorialized in the IGA; and WHEREAS, § 603(4) of the RTA Law requires voter approval prior to establishment of an RTA. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL: Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the IGA in substantially the form attached hereto, subject to final approval by the Town Attorney. Upon such approval, the Mayor is authorized to execute the IGA on behalf of the Town. Section 2. Pursuant to § 2.04(b) of the IGA, the Town Council agrees to submit appropriate ballot measures to the Town's registered electors at a special election on November 8, 2022, to be coordinated with Eagle County. May 17, 2022 - Page 225 of 549 2 5/13/2022 \\FILESERVER2019\REDIRECTED$\SBIBBENS\DESKTOP\RTA-R050622 (002).DOCX INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th day of May, 2022. ______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 226 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) EAGLE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT by and among BEAVER CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO TOWN OF EAGLE, COLORADO TOWN OF GYPSUM, COLORADO TOWN OF MINTURN, COLORADO TOWN OF RED CLIFF, COLORADO and TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Dated as of [May 31, 2022] Providing for the establishment of the “Eagle Valley Transportation Authority” as a Colorado Regional Transportation Authority pursuant to the Regional Transportation Law, Title 43, Article 4, Part 6, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. May 17, 2022 - Page 227 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................2 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUTHORITY AND INITIAL MEMBERS ...............4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS .........................................................................................7 ADVISORY COMMITTEES ...................................................................................10 OFFICERS ................................................................................................................10 POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY ...........................................................................12 FUNDING THE AUTHORITY................................................................................15 REORGANIZATION ...............................................................................................16 MEMBERS ...............................................................................................................17 TERM AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION .................18 DEFENSE OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEES .....................................................................................19 AMENDMENTS ....................................................................................................19 MISCELLANEOUS ...............................................................................................20 May 17, 2022 - Page 228 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) EAGLE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS EAGLE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of [May 31, 2022] by and among the BEAVER CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, the TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO; EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO; the TOWN OF EAGLE, COLORADO; the TOWN OF GYPSUM, COLORADO; the TOWN OF MINTURN, COLORADO; the TOWN OF RED CLIFF, COLORADO; and the TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO (together the “Initial Signatories”). RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 43, Article 4, Part 6 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Act”), Colorado counties, municipalities, and special districts with street improvement, safety protection, or transportation powers, are authorized to establish, by contract, regional transportation authorities, which, upon the satisfaction of the conditions set forth herein, are authorized to finance, construct, operate and maintain regional transportation systems; WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 29, Article 1, Part 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Intergovernmental Relations Statute”), and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution, governments may contract with one another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully authorized to each of the contracting units and any such contract may provide for the joint exercise of the function, service or facility, including the establishment of a separate legal entity to do so; WHEREAS, the Initial Signatories are a Colorado county, a Colorado special district, and certain Colorado municipalities located within the boundaries of Eagle County that desire to form a regional transportation authority to serve the greater Eagle River Valley community pursuant to the Act and the Intergovernmental Relations Statute for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining regional transportation systems; WHEREAS, enhancing regional transportation services for Eagle County residents, businesses and visitors is a crucial step in meeting the communities’ workforce, economic and climate goals, and regional transportation services support Eagle County socially and economically, helping employees get to work safely and visitors to enjoy their Eagle County experience; WHEREAS, the signatories of this Agreement wish to work toward collaborative solutions that will increase transportation and transit options throughout the greater Eagle River Valley, as well as increase air connections to the Eagle River Valley; WHEREAS, extensive input from local businesses, employees, nonprofits and community members have made clear that the creation of a Regional Transportation Authority (“RTA”) is a May 17, 2022 - Page 229 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 2 desirable way to plan, finance, implement and operate a more comprehensive regional transportation system that better meets the needs of communities; WHEREAS, an RTA serving the greater Eagle River Valley is poised to improve transit service, increase ridership and efficiency across the valley’s existing transit agencies, provide affordable or free transit to the valley’s visitors and employee base, strengthen the connection between the valley’s different communities, and advance local climate action goals by reducing car trips and increasing the use of low or zero emission public transportation; and WHEREAS, transit services promote independent living for the elderly and the disabled by providing essential links to medical, social and other services, and the region recognizes the need to improve mobility options for all segments of the population. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, the Initial Signatories hereby agree as follows: DEFINITIONS Definitions from the Act. The following terms shall, when capitalized, have the meanings assigned to them in Section 602 of the Act: “Bond,” “Construct,” “Construction,” “County,” “Municipality,” “Person,” “Regional Transportation Activity Enterprise,” “Regional Transportation System,” and “State”. Other Definitions. The following terms shall, when capitalized, have the following meanings: “Act” is defined in the Recitals. “Advisory Committee” means two or more persons appointed by the Board pursuant to Article 4 of this Agreement for the purpose of providing advice to the Board. “Agreement” means this Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Intergovernmental Agreement, as amended from time to time in accordance with the terms contained therein. “Alternate Director” means any person appointed as an Alternate Director pursuant to Section 3.03 of this Agreement. “Authority” means the Eagle Valley Transportation Authority, a separate political subdivision of and body corporate of the State established pursuant to this Agreement as a regional transportation authority under the Act and as a separate legal entity under the Intergovernmental Relations Statute. May 17, 2022 - Page 230 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 3 “Authority Sales Tax” means a sales and use tax levied by the Authority in all or any designated portion of the Members in accordance with Section 605(1)(j)(1) of the Act. “Authorized Transportation Projects” refers to the Regional Transportation Systems projects described in Appendix C of this Agreement, as such projects may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article 6 of this Agreement. “Ballot Question” refers to any of the questions listed in Section 2.04(a)(i)-(viii) of this Agreement, and shall mean a “Ballot Issue,” as defined in Title 1, Article 1, Part 104(2.3), Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. The Ballot Question for each of the Initial Signatories are collectively referred to as the “Ballot Questions.” “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Authority. “Boundaries” means the boundaries of the Authority illustrated in Appendix A-1 and described in Appendix A-2 of this Agreement, as such Appendices may be amended from time- to-time in accordance with Article 12 of this Agreement. “Director” means any person appointed as a Director pursuant to Section 3.02 of this Agreement Whenever the person appointed as a Member’s Director is absent from a Board meeting, the term “Director” shall mean the Alternate Director, if any, appointed by such Member pursuant to Section 3.03 of this Agreement. “Division of Local Government” means the Division of Local Government in the State Department of Local Affairs. “ECRTA” means the Eagle County Regional Transit Authority (Fund 1151) which operates Eagle County’s current ECO Transit public transportation service, and which is also referred to in this Agreement as “ECO Transit.” “Governing Body” means, when used with respect to a Member, the town council, board of trustees, board of commissioners or other legislative body, as appropriate, of such Member. “Initial Boundaries” means the Boundaries of the Authority on the date the Authority is originally established pursuant to Article 10.01 of this Agreement, as such Initial Boundaries are illustrated in Appendix A-1 and described in Appendix A-2 of this Agreement. “Initial Members” means the Initial Signatories who become Members on the date on which the Authority is originally established pursuant to Section 2.05 of this Agreement. “Initial Signatories” means the county, special district, and municipalities that are signatories to this Agreement in its original form. “Intergovernmental Relations Statute” is defined in the Recitals. May 17, 2022 - Page 231 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 4 “Member” means (a) the Initial Members and (b) the State or any Municipality or County or special district that becomes a member of the Authority pursuant to Section 9.03 of this Agreement. “MOU” means the Memorandum of Understanding Establishing a Regional Transit Authority Formation Committee entered into by and among the Initial Signatories for the purpose of researching and proposing the structure of an RTA to serve the greater Eagle River Va lley community. “Officer” means the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer or Executive Director of the Authority, and any subordinate officer or agent appointed and designated as an officer of the Authority by the Board. “Regional Transportation Systems” shall have the meaning given to it in Section 602(16) of the Act. “Visitor Benefit Tax” means a visitor benefit tax levied by the Authority in all or any designated portion of a Member in accordance with Section 605(1)(i.5) of the Act and Section 7.01 hereof. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AUTHORITY AND INITIAL MEMBERS Establishment. A regional transportation authority to be known as the “Eagle Valley Transportation Authority” shall be established as a separate political subdivision and body corporate of the State pursuant to the Act and as a separate legal entity created by this Agreement among the Initial Members pursuant to the Intergovernmental Relations Statute, effective upon satisfaction of the following conditions: (a) each Initial Member (i) has held at least two public hearings on the subject of this Agreement in accordance with Section 603(3) of the Act; and (ii) has executed this Agreement, which execution shall constitute a representation by such Initial Member to t he other Initial Members that the executing Initial Member has held the public hearings required by Section 603(3) of the Act and that the Governing Body of such Initial Member has duly authorized its execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement; (b) this Agreement will be submitted for approval, and has been approved by, a majority of the registered electors residing within the boundaries of the Initial Members at the time of the election, who voted in a general election or special election called for such purpose in accordance with Section 603(4) of the Act, which, for purposes of the November 8, 2022, election, shall be determined based on the votes cast on the Ballot Questions approved by the registered electors voting on the Ballot Questions that approve the participation in the Authority; and May 17, 2022 - Page 232 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 5 (c) the Director of the Division of Local Government has issued a certificate pursuant to Section 603(1) of the Act stating that the Authority has been duly organized according to the laws of the State. Purpose. The purpose of the Authority is to plan, finance, implement and operate an efficient, sustainable and regional public multimodal transportation system at any location or locations within or without the Boundaries of the Authority, and exercise any or all other powers authorized by, and subject to compliance with, the Act. Boundaries. Subject to Section 2.05 and amendment to reflect to outcome of the Ballot Questions, the Initial Boundaries of the Authority shall be as illustrated in Appendix A-1 and described in Appendix A-2 of this Agreement. For any territory included or annexed in the boundaries of a Member, the Boundaries shall automatically be amended to include such territory that has been included or annexed into the boundaries of the Member (for taxation purposes, as if such territory was included in the Boundaries of the Authority because the territory is included in the boundaries of such Member). Voter Approval. (a) The Initial Signatories agree to submit Ballot Questions seeking voter approval of the establishment of the Authority; the baseline funding of the Authority in accordance with Article 7 and the exemption of certain Authority revenues from the revenue limitations of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”) at an election held on November 8, 2022, that is conducted in accordance with the Act and other applicable law. Eight separate questions, which are hereafter referred to by the names indicated below and drafts of which are attached of this Agreement as Appendixes B-1 through B-8, shall be submitted to the registered electors residing within the following described areas within the boundaries of the Initial Signatories: (i) the “Avon Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-1, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Avon; (ii) the “Beaver Creek Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-2, shall be submitted to the electors of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District; (iii) the “Eagle Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-3, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Eagle; (iv) the “Gypsum Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B- 4, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Gypsum; (v) the “Minturn Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B- 5, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Minturn; (vi) the “Red Cliff Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-6, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Red Cliff; May 17, 2022 - Page 233 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 6 (vii) the “Vail Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-7, shall be submitted to the electors of the Town of Vail; and (viii) the “Unincorporated Eagle County Question,” a draft of which is attached hereto as Appendix B-8, shall be submitted to the electors of the unincorporated area of Eagle County within the boundaries described in Appendix A-2, exclusive of electors residing in the municipalities and special district that are Initial Signatories of this Agreement. (b) With the intent to put forth these measures as a coordinated election under the Clerk of Eagle County, the Governing Body of each of the Initial Signatories named in the title of each Ballot Question shall take all actions necessary to submit such questions to the appropriate registered electors at the Election but may modify the Ballot Questions submitted by it in any manner that is consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the Ballot Questions attached in Appendices B-1 through B-8. Any Governing Body’s modification(s) to a Ballot Question that are inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement and the attached appendices shall require the written consent of each of the other Initial Signatories prior to its submittal to that body’s registered electors. The designated election official for a coordinated election shall be the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. (c) The costs of conducting the November 8, 2022, election shall be allocated from the funding contributions set forth in the MOU. Initial Members. (a) Subject to Section 2.05(b) of this Agreement, the Initial Signatories whose participation in the Authority is authorized by a majority of the registered electors voting on the Ballot Questions indicated below shall be the Initial Members of the Authority on the date the Authority is originally established pursuant to this Agreement: (i) the Town of Avon will be an Initial Member if the Town of Avon electors approve the Avon Question; (ii) the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District will be an Initial Member if the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District electors approve the Beaver Creek Question; (iii) the Town of Eagle will be an Initial Member if the Town of Eagle electors approve the Eagle Question; (iv) the Town of Gypsum will be an Initial Member if the Town of Gypsum electors approve the Gypsum Question; (v) the Town of Minturn will be an Initial Member if the Town of Minturn electors approve the Minturn Question; (vi) the Town of Red Cliff will be an Initial Member if the Town of Red Cliff electors approve the Red Cliff Question; May 17, 2022 - Page 234 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 7 (vii) the Town of Vail will be an Initial Member if the Town of Vail electors approve the Vail Question; and (viii) Eagle County will be an Initial Member if the electors within the unincorporated area of Eagle County described in Section 2.04(a)(viii) approve the Unincorporated Eagle County Question. (b) The Initial Signatories agree that in order for the Regional Transportation Systems to be efficiently and effectively provided within the Authority’s service area, participation of each of the Town of Avon, the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District, Eagle County, and the Town of Vail, is essential. This Agreement will terminate automatically and be of no further force and effect if the registered electors voting on each of the Avon Question, the Beaver Creek Question, the Vail Question, and the Unincorporated Eagle County Question do not each approve their respective ballot questions at the November 8, 2022, election. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Establishment and Powers. The Authority shall be governed by a Board of Directors as described in this Article 3. The Board shall exercise and perform all powers, privileges and duties vested in or imposed on the Authority. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Board may delegate or prescribe the performance of any of its powers to any Director, Officer, employee or agent of the Authority with sufficient direction to comply with the non-delegation doctrine. Directors. The Board shall be composed of one Director appointed by each Member. Alternate Directors. In addition to the Director appointed by it, each Member shall appoint an Alternate Director who shall be deemed to be such Member ’s Director for all purposes, including, but not limited to, voting on resolutions whenever the person appointed as such Member’s Director is absent from a Board meeting or in the event such Director has resigned or been removed and no replacement Director has been appointed. Appointment of Directors and Alternate Directors. As required by Section 603(2)(b)(1) of the Act, the Director and the Alternate Director appointed by a Member shall both be members of the Governing Body of such Member, and shall be appointed as a Director or Alternate Director by the Governing Body of such Member. Terms of Office. The term of office of each Director and Alternate Director shall commence with the first meeting of the Board following his or her appointment and shall continue until (a) the date on which a successor is duly appointed or (b) the date on which he or she ceases to be a member of the Governing Body of the appointing Member. May 17, 2022 - Page 235 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 8 Resignation and Removal. Any Director or Alternate Director (a) may resign at any time, effective upon receipt by the Secretary or the Chair of written notice signed by the person who is resigning; and (b) may be removed at any time by the Governing Body of the Member that appointed him or her, effective upon receipt by the Secretary or the Chair of written notice signed by the Governing Body of the appointing Member. Vacancies. Vacancies in the office of any Director or Alternate Director shall be filled in the same manner in which the vacant office was originally filled pursuant to Sections 3.02 through 3.04 of this Agreement. Compensation. Directors and Alternate Directors shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in serving in such capacities upon such terms and pursuant to such procedures as may be established by the Board. Meetings, Notice. The Board shall annually establish times for regular meetings of the Board, which shall meet no less than quarterly. The Board may additionally call special meetings as it deems necessary or desirable. Meetings will be held at the location as may from time to time be designated by the Board. Public notice of meetings shall be posted in the locations established by the Board, in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law, Section 24-6-401 et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Except in the case of special or emergency meetings where such advance notice is not practicable, the Authority shall provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice of meetings to each Director and Alternate Director and to the Governing Body of each Member. Resolutions, Quorum. All actions of the Board shall be by resolution, which may be written or oral, approved at a meeting that is open to the public according to the voting requirements set forth in Section 3.11. At least a quorum shall be necessary to take any Board action and at least two-thirds of all Directors then in office who are eligible to vote thereon will be required for action pursuant to Section 3.11(a). A quorum shall mean a number of Directors greater than half the total number of Directors then in office (which, if all Initial Signatories become Initial Members, will be five of the eight initial Directors). The Board may establish bylaws providing for electronic participation by a Director in a meeting, including requirements for a Director participating electronically to be considered “present” for purposes of establishing a quorum and voting on agenda items. Voting Requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section, resolutions of the Board shall be adopted upon the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Directors then in office who are eligible to vote thereon (which, if all Initial Signatories become Initial Members and no Director is ineligible to vote, will be six of the eight initial Directors). (b) Provided a quorum is present, the following actions shall be approved upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors of the Board then present who are eligible to vote thereon: May 17, 2022 - Page 236 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 9 (i) administrative approvals such as setting meeting locations and times and ministerial actions required for the Authority’s compliance with applicable law; (ii) approvals authorized by bylaws or rules previously approved by the Board; (iii) approval of contracts for expenditures included in an annual budget previously approved by the Board; (iv) approval of contracts for transportation services included in an annual budget previously approved by the Board; (v) approval of contracts for the assumptions of existing facilities and transportation infrastructure, or the development of new facilities and transportation infrastructure, included in an annual budget previously approved by the Board; and (vi) other actions that are reasonably incidental to prior Board approvals made under subsection (a) of this Section. Special Rules Regarding Adoption of the Authority’s Annual Budget. Notwithstanding Section 3.10 of this Agreement, if the Board fails to approve the Authority’s annual budget by resolution adopted in accordance with Section 3.10 of this Agreement by the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year of the Authority or any earlier date required by State law, until an annual budget is so adopted, the Authority’s budget for such year shall be the prior year’s budget, with adjustments approved by a majority of the Directors then in office who ar e eligible to vote thereon. The procedures set forth in this Section may be modified by bylaws or rules adopted in accordance with Section 3.15 of this Agreement. Director Conflicts of Interest. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Director shall disqualify himself or herself from voting on any issue with respect to which he or she has a conflict of interest, unless he or she has disclosed such conflict of interest in compliance with Sections 18-8-308 and 24-18-101 et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Powers of the Board. The Board shall, subject to the limitations set forth of this Agreement, have (a) all powers that may be exercised by the board of directors or a regional transportation authority pursuant to the Act, including, but not limited to, the powers conferred by Sections 604(1) and (3) of the Act, and (b) all powers that may be exercised by the governing board of a separate legal entity that has been lawfully created by a contract among the Members pursuant to the Intergovernmental Relations Statute. Bylaws and Rules. The Board, acting by resolution adopted as provided for in Section 3.10 or Section 3.11 of this Agreement, may adopt bylaws or rules governing the activities of the Authority and the Board, including, but not limited to, bylaws or rules governing the conduct of Board meetings, voting procedures, the type of resolutions that must be in writing and procedures for the resolution of issues on which a two-thirds majority cannot be obtained in accordance with Section 3.11(a) of this Agreement. May 17, 2022 - Page 237 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 10 Additional Directors. If at any time there are four or fewer Members, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in order to comply with the provisions of Section 603(2)(b)(1) of the Act requiring at least five Directors, the Directors representing the remaining Members shall, by unanimous consent, appoint such additional Directors and Alternate Directors as are necessary for there to be five Directors, and may likewise remove such Directors and Alternative Directors by consensus of the Directors appointed directly by the Members. If such remaining Directors are unable to reach unanimous consent, each Member shall appoint a second Director, until the total number of Members exceeds five at which time each Member shall revert to appointing a sole Director. References. All references of this Agreement to the Director and Alternate Director of a Member shall be deemed to refer to the initial and the additional Director and Alternate Director, as appropriate, appointed by such Member. ADVISORY COMMITTEES The Board may appoint, maintain, and/or disband one or more Advisory Committees at any time in order to advise the Board with respect to policy and service matters. Advisory Committees shall not be authorized to exercise any power of the Board. OFFICERS Generally. The Board shall appoint a Chair, a Vice Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer and an Executive Director. The Board also may appoint one or more subordinate officers and agents, each of whom shall hold his or her office or agency for such term and shall have such authority, powers and duties as shall be determined from time to time by the Board. The Chair and the Vice Chair shall be Directors. Other Officers may, but need not, be Directors. Any two or more of such offices may be held by the same person, except that the offices of Chair and Secretary may not be held by the same person and the person serving as Executive Director may not hold any other of such offices. All Officers of the Authority shall be persons of the age of 18 years or older and shall meet the other qualifications, if any, stated for his or her office elsewhere in this Article 5. Alternate Directors shall not assume the officer position of any Director unless so designated by action of the Board. Chair. The Chair shall have the power to call meetings of the Board; the power to execute, deliver, acknowledge, file and record on behalf of the Authority such documents as may be required by this Agreement, the Act or other applicable law; and such other powers as may be prescribed from time to time by the Board. The Chair may execute and deliver contracts, deeds and other instruments and agreements on behalf of the Authority as are necessary or appropriate in the ordinary course of its activities or as are duly authorized or approved by the Board. The Chair shall have such additional authority, powers and duties as are appropriate and May 17, 2022 - Page 238 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 11 customary for the office of the chair of the board of directors of entities such as the Authority, and as the Board may otherwise prescribe. Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall be the Officer next in seniority after the Chair and, upon the death, absence or disability of the Chair, shall have the authority, powers and duties of the Chair. The Vice Chair shall have such additional authority, powers and duties as are prescribed by the Board. Secretary. The Secretary shall give, or cause to be given, notice of all meetings (including special meetings) of the Board, keep written minutes of such meetings, have charge of the Authority’s seal (if any), be responsible for the maintenance of all records and files and the preparation and filing of reports to governmental agencies (other than tax returns), have authority to impress or affix the Authority’s seal to any instrument requiring it (and, when so impressed or affixed, it may be attested by his or her signature), and have such other authority, powers and duties as arc appropriate and customary for the office of Secretary of entities such as the Authority, and as the Board may otherwise prescribe. If a Treasurer has not been appointed, the Secretary shall also serve as Treasurer and may use the title of Treasurer in performing the functions of Treasurer. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall, subject to rules and procedures established by the Board, be responsible for the custody of the funds and all stocks, bonds and other securities owned by the Authority and shall be responsible for ensuring the timely preparation and filing of all tax returns, if any, required to be filed by the Authority. The Treasurer shall receive all moneys paid to the Authority and, subject to any limits imposed by the Board or the Chair, shall have authority to give or authorize receipts and vouchers, to sign and endorse checks and warrants in the Authority’s name and on the Authority’s behalf, and to give full discharge for the same. The Treasurer shall also have charge of disbursement of the funds of the Authority, shall ensure that full and accurate records of the receipts and disbursements are maintained, and shall ensure that all moneys and other valuables are deposited in such depositories as shall be designated by the Board. The Treasurer shall ensure deposit and investment of all funds of the Authority in accordance with this Agreement and laws of the State applying to the deposit and investment of funds of regional transportation authorities formed under the Act. The Treasurer shall have such additional authority, powers and duties as are appropriate and customary for the office of Treasurer of entities such as the Authority, and as the Board may otherwise prescribe. If a Treasurer has not been appointed, the Secretary shall also serve as Treasurer and may use the title of Treasurer in performing the functions of Treasurer. Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be the chief executive officer of the Authority, shall supervise the activities of the Authority, shall see that all policies, directions and orders of the Board are carried out and shall, under the supervision of the Board, have such other authority, powers or duties as may be prescribed by the Board. Resignation and Removal. Any Officer may resign at any time effective upon receipt by the Secretary or the Chair of written notice signed by the person who is resigning, and may be removed at any time by the Board. May 17, 2022 - Page 239 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 12 Changes to Authority, Powers and Duties. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article 5, the Board at any time may expand, limit or modify the authority, powers and duties of any Officer or employee. Vacancies. Vacancies in the office of any Officer or employee shall be filled in the same manner in which such office was originally filled. Compensation. The Authority shall determine and may compensate Officers and employees who are not Directors or Alternate Directors for services performed, and may reimburse them for expenses incurred, in serving in such capacities upon such terms and pursuant to such procedures as may be established by the Board. POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY General Grant of Powers. The Authority shall, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, have (i) all of the powers granted to regional transportation authorities by the Act and (ii) all powers that may be exercised by a separate legal entity created by a contract among the Members pursuant to the Intergovernmental Relations Statute. Specific Responsibilities. In addition to the general powers described in Section 6.01 of this Agreement, the Authority shall have the responsibilities described in this Section and shall have all powers necessary or convenient to carry out such responsibilities, subject to the availability of funds and, to the extent required by law, annual appropriation of funds by the Board. The description of specific responsibilities and powers in this Section shall not, however, limit the general powers of the Authority described in Section 6.01 of this Agreement. (a) Regional Transportation Systems. The Authority shall coordinate and may operate and fund Regional Transportation Systems and provide such related services as are necessary in order to effect the Authorized Transportation Projects described in Appendix C, as may be amended from time to time in accordance with Article 12 of this Agreement. (b) Regional Transportation Planning. The Authority shall engage in annual regional transportation planning to direct the implementation of Regional Transportation Systems, pursue local, federal or state funding, and coordinate overall transportation policy within the area in which it provides transit services. Regional transportation planning shall, as determined by the Board, include short range service and infrastructure planning as well as long range planning, corridor investment studies and related impact analyses. (c) Regional Transportation Demand Management. The Authority shall develop plans, programs, and materials to support individuals and employers in their efforts to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips and mitigate climate impacts in Eagle County, in coordination with local jurisdictions, CDOT, NWCCOG, the I-70 Coalition and other relevant organizations. (d) Enhance Local, State, and Federal Coordination. May 17, 2022 - Page 240 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 13 (i) The Authority shall represent the Eagle Valley region with regard to state and federal legislation affecting available funding to support regional transit operations and with regard to legislation affecting operations. (ii) The Authority shall coordinate with the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) and federal governing agencies to enhance regional transit, including but not limited to, improvements to connections to the Authority area via Bustang and other statewide bus programs and increased air service to the Eagle County Regional airport. (e) First-Last Mile Solutions. The Authority may study, design, financially support and implement, with partnerships as appropriate, first and last mile improvements to enhance transit ridership, including but not limited to park and rides, pedestrian crossings, and regional innovative mobility programs such as regional e-bike sharing, on-demand microtransit, and community vanpools. (f) Contract Transit Services. (i) The Authority may enter into contracts with any Member or other person or entity for the provision of transit services in the manner and subject to the terms of such contracts. (ii) The Authority may initially enter into contracts with Eagle County for the continuation of ECO Transit service during and after the ECRTA Transition Period (as set out more specifically in Article 8 below) and shall reasonably cooperate with Eagle County to ensure the continuation of employment for personnel currently employed by Eagle County in the provision of transit services within the Boundaries of the Authority. (g) Local Service. The Authority may fund projects or services that serve the residents and businesses of a single Member (as distinguished from regional services) but, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, only pursuant to an agreement to which such Member pays the Authority for the services provided on the same fully allocated cost basis used to determine costs of Authority services throughout the Authority’s service area. (h) Transportation Related Infrastructure. The Authority may assume the maintenance of existing facilities and may develop new facilities, park-and-rides, transit stops, vehicle maintenance garages, trails, or other necessary infrastructure related to operations under the purview of the Authority. (a) Planning, Construction, and Maintenance of Regional Trails and Pedestrian Infrastructure. (i) The Authority shall provide planning and funding support for regional public trail maintenance, improvement, and construction, in cooperation with Members, advisory groups and other agencies, including but not limited to USFS, BLM and CDOT. The Authority will place emphasis on multi-modal transportation-oriented trails that May 17, 2022 - Page 241 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 14 provide improved accessibility and connections between transit nodes, population centers, and communities. (ii) The Authority may plan for transitioning the operations, maintenance, capital improvements, and funding required for Eagle County’s ECO Trails partnership, including the Eagle Valley Trail, after completion of all currently planned sections and no sooner than December 31, 2024. (i) Contract Air Services. The Authority may enter into contracts with commercial air service carriers for the provision of air services in the manner and subject to the terms of such contracts. (j) Roadway Improvements. Subject to the Gypsum Question first being approved by the electors of the Town of Gypsum, the Authority shall provide financial support for the construction on an EGE Airport interchange, including commitment of matching funds to be combined with other local matching funds in support of the pursuit of state and federal grant funds. Any obligation of the Authority to provide matching funds will be conditional upon first securing funds for construction of the EGE Airport Interchange from all other available federal, state, and local funding sources and shall not exceed an amount budgeted therefor by the Board. It is anticipated that the Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Eagle County, or some combination thereof will be the responsible entities for all permitting, financing and construction. and the Authority’s role would be limited to providing matching funds as described in this Section. Limitations on Powers of the Authority. Notwithstanding Sections 6.01 and 6.02 of this Agreement, the powers of the Authority shall be limited as follows: (a) no action to establish or increase a tax or to create a multiple fiscal year debt or other financial obligation that is subject to Section 20(4)(h) of Article X of the State Constitution shall take effect unless first submitted to a vote in accordance with Section 612 of the Act; (b) the Board shall deliver notice of any proposal to establish, increase or decrease any tax to any County, Municipality or special district Member where the proposed tax or fee would be imposed in accordance with Section 613 of the Act; and (c) a notice of the imposition of or any increase in any fee or tax or the issuance of Bonds shall be sent to the Division of Local Government and shall be filed with the State Auditor and the State Transportation Commission in accordance with Section 614 of the Act. Limitations. If any portion of the Regional Transportation System alters the physical structure of or negatively impacts the safe operation of any state or local transportation improvement, the Authority shall, upon the request of the Governing Body of the jurisdiction impacted by the transportation improvement, in order to ensure coordinated transportation planning, efficient allocation of resources, and the equitable sharing of costs, enter into an intergovernmental agreement between the Authority and such jurisdiction concerning the applicable portion of the Regional Transportation System before commencing physical construction of that particular improvement. May 17, 2022 - Page 242 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 15 FUNDING THE AUTHORITY Baseline Funding. The baseline funding of the Authority shall be provided from the following sources: (a) Initial Authority Sales and Use Tax. Subject to Section 2.05(b) of this Agreement, upon approval by the registered electors of the Ballot Question for each Initial Member, a sales and use tax of one-half percent (0.5%) shall be imposed in all areas within the Initial Boundaries of the Authority. (b) Eagle County 0.5% Transportation Sales Tax. Eagle County shall pay to the Authority the proportion of the proceeds of the Eagle County 0.5% Transportation Sales Tax accrued on and after January 1 of the year following the Effective Date of this Agreement and that are allocated to ECRTA operations as of the Effective Date. To the extent required by law, the obligation of Eagle County to make such payments may be subject to annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County. (c) Visitor Benefit and Lodging Tax. The Visitor Benefit Tax imposed by the Authority on persons who purchase overnight rooms or accommodations shall, upon satisfaction of the conditions stated below, be imposed at a rate of 1% within the Boundaries of the Authority: Such Visitor Benefit Tax shall apply to all types of accommodations available for rent for a period of thirty days or less within the Boundaries of the Authority. The proceeds of the Visitor Benefit Tax shall be used by the Authority solely to finance, construct, operate, and maintain Regional Transportation Systems and provide incentives to overnight visitors to use public transportation. To the extent that the imposition of an additional tax by the Authority is precluded by Section 43-4-605(1)(i.5)(I), C.R.S., such Member shall seek alternative sources of funding, or pledge existing tax revenues, in an equivalent amount. Discretionary Member Contributions. A Member may, at its sole discretion, offer to make cash contributions to the Authority, provide in-kind services to the Authority or pay costs that otherwise would have been paid by the Authority (referred to as a “Discretionary Member Contribution”). If a Member offers to make a Discretionary Member Contribution, the Authority will, subject to Board approval on a case-by-case basis, make a good faith effort to provide additional transportation services within the boundaries of such Member with a value, or grant such Member a credit against other contributions or contract service payments to the Authority by or on behalf of such Member, in an amount equal to the Discretionary Member Contribution. Pursuit of Grants. The Authority shall actively pursue grants to support its activities, including grants for offsetting operating and capital costs, long range planning and environmental review, and major capital improvements. The Authority shall also cooperate and assist Members in their pursuit of grants for transportation projects. May 17, 2022 - Page 243 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 16 Capital Projects and Bonds. The Authority may fund capital projects by the issuance of Authority Bonds pursuant to Section 609 of the Act if voter approval is obtained for the issuance of such Bonds as required by Section 612(2) of the Act; through lease-purchase agreements or other arrangements permitted by, and subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of, State and federal law; or through one or more agreements with one or more Members. Bond issuances by Regional Transportation Enterprises formed pursuant to Section 606 of the Act do not require voter approval. No Implied Limits on Powers. Except as otherwise specifically provided, no provision of this Article 7 shall limit the Authority’s powers under the Act. REORGANIZATION Reorganization Plan. All relevant assets and liabilities of ECRTA will be transferred to the Authority in accordance with this Article 8 within an 18 month period of time from the Effective Date of this Agreement and establishment of the Authority (the “ECRTA Transition Period.”) ECRTA Transition Period, Maintenance of Effort. During the ECRTA Transition Period, the Authority will undertake the following: (a) The Authority will assume responsibility for the services provided by ECRTA and will begin receipt transfers of the operating revenues of ECRTA (as distinguished from the contributions to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority by its members) from Eagle County no later than January 1 of the year following formation of the Authority in accordance with Section 7.01(b) of this Agreement; provided, however, that the Authority may not allocate such revenues to any purpose other than funding of services provided by ECRTA, including payments under any contract with Eagle County referred to herein for services of employees or other assets of ECTRA, in order to ensure continuity of ECO Transit services during the ECRTA Transition Period as the provision of such services, and the transfer of assets and liabilities, transition from Eagle County to the Authority over such period. (b) For the purpose of continuity, the existing ECRTA Advisory Board shall be constituted as an Advisory Committee pursuant to Article 4 of this Agreement for the purpose of advising the Authority’s initial Board with respect to the transition of ECRTA services throughout the ECRTA Transition Period. The Authority Board may add or remove members of the ECRTA Advisory Board as provided for in this Agreement. (c) Either directly or by contract with Eagle County or others, will use reasonable efforts to: (i) maintain continuity of the existing ECO Transit regional transit services provided by ECRTA within the Authority Boundaries and to neighboring jurisdictions, May 17, 2022 - Page 244 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 17 without any significant changes in routes, schedules, or equipment, during the ECRTA Transition Period; (ii) continue ongoing transportation planning efforts; (iii) enter into contracts for transit services ECRTA currently provides to other Eagle County departments or entities no later than the end of the ECRTA Transition Period; and (iv) accommodate Member requests for additional or new local services on the same fully allocated cost basis used to determine the cost of Authority services throughout the Authority service area; (d) The Authority will assist Eagle County to cause all relevant Eagle County assets, liabilities, personnel, contracts, and operations to be formally transferred and assigned to the Authority, and to enter into any required intergovernmental agreement, leases, or other contractual arrangements to enable such transfers or assignments, prior to the conclusion of the ECRTA Transition Period; and (e) The ECRTA Transition Period will be deemed concluded when all issues set forth in the Transition Plan (defined in Section 8.03) have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Board. Transition Plan. (a) The Authority and Eagle County shall use their best efforts to agree on a “Transition Plan” that implements the provisions of this Article 8. The Transition Plan will specify how merger issues, including those related to human resources, employee benefits, insurance, transfer of ECRTA assets, contractual relationships (e.g. with the Town of Vail and the Town of Avon), and matters concerning the allocation of operating and capital costs and resources will be resolved. MEMBERS Initial Members. The Initial Members shall be the Initial Signatories whose participation in the Authority is approved at the November 8, 2022, election as described in Section 2.05 of this Agreement. Withdrawal of Initial Members. (a) Following establishment of the Authority, an initial Member may withdraw from the Authority only if the Initial Member’s withdrawal is approved at an election by a majority of the electors voting thereon. (b) If an Initial Member withdraws from the Authority pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section: May 17, 2022 - Page 245 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 18 (i) the territory within the boundaries of such Initial Member will be excluded from the Boundaries of the Authority. (ii) the taxes relevant to that Initial Member shall not be levied after the effective date of such withdrawal; and (iii) the obligations of such Initial Member set forth in this Agreement shall terminate. (c) Members may only withdraw from the Authority in the manner, and subject to the conditions, set forth in this Section. Additional Members. Any county, municipality, or special district with street improvement, safety protection, or transportation powers, or a portion thereof, which is not an Initial Member of the Authority, may become a Member (for purposes of this Section, a “new Member”) effective upon: (a) the adoption of a resolution of the Board in accordance with Section 3.11(a) of this Agreement, the effectiveness of which may be conditioned upon compliance by such new Member with any conditions which the Board, in its sole discretion, sees fit to impose; (b) unless the new Member is the State, approval of such new Member’s participation in the Authority by the electors residing within the territory of the new Member that is to be included in the Boundaries of the Authority; and (c) compliance with any other conditions to the admission of such new Member as a Member or its execution of the amended Agreement imposed under the Act, the Intergovernmental Relations Statue or any other applicable law. TERM AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION Effective Date. The term of this Agreement shall begin when all the conditions to the establishment of the Authority set forth in Section 2.01 of this Agreement have been satisfied. Termination. The term of this Agreement shall end when all the Members agree in writing to terminate this Agreement; provided, however, that this Agreement may not be terminated so long as the Authority has any Bonds outstanding. Distribution of Assets Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 10.02 of this Agreement, after payment of all Bonds and other obligations of the Authority, the net assets of the Authority shall be distributed to the parties who are Members at such time in proportion to the sum of: May 17, 2022 - Page 246 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 19 (a) the amount of cash and the value of property and services contributed by them to the Authority pursuant to Article 7 and 8 of this Agreement minus the amount of cash and the value of property previously distributed to them by the Authority; and (b) the amount of Authority taxes or other charges (other than fares) paid by their residents to the Authority pursuant to the Authority’s exercise of the powers granted to it pursuant to the Act, with taxes or other charges paid by residents of areas of counties which are also located within a municipality or special district allocated 100% to the municipality or special district for such purposes. DEFENSE OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND EMPLOYEES Authority Obligations. The Authority shall insure and defend each Director, Officer, member of an Advisory Committee and employee of the Authority in connection with any claim or actual or threatened suit, action or proceeding (civil, criminal or other, including appeals), in which he or she may be involved in his or her official capacity by reason of his or her being or having been a Director, Officer, member of a Committee or employee of the Authority, or by reason of any action or omission by him or her in such capacity. The Authority shall insure and defend each Director, Officer, member of a Committee and employee of the Authority against all liability, costs and expenses arising from any such claim, suit or action, except any liability arising from criminal offenses or willful misconduct or gross negligence. The Authority’s obligations pursuant to this Article 11 shall be limited to funds of the Authority available for such purpose, including but not necessarily limited to insurance proceeds. The Board may establish specific rules and procedures for the implementation of this Article 11 . AMENDMENTS Amendments Generally. This Agreement, except as may be limited in this Article 12, may be amended only by resolution of the Board and upon unanimous consent of all Members minus one. Such consent shall first be manifested by a majority affirmative vote of the Governing Bodies of each Member. Amendments to Boundaries. Except as provided in Section 2.03 of this Agreement, the Initial Boundaries illustrated in Appendix A-1 and described in Appendix A-2, may be amended in accordance with Section 12.01 of this Agreement and with the required approval of the registered voters of any county, municipality or unincorporated portion of a county proposed to be added to the territory of the Authority. For purposes of this Section, the boundaries may not include territory within the boundaries of a municipality that is not a Member without the consent of the governing body of such municipality, and may not include territory within the unincorporated boundaries of a county that is not a Member without the consent of the governing body of such county. May 17, 2022 - Page 247 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 20 Modification of Appendices B-1 through B-8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, any Ballot Question attached hereto as Appendix B-1 through B-8 may be modified by the Governing Body of the Initial Signatory responsible for submitting such Ballot Question to the electors as provided in Section 2.04 of this Agreement. MISCELLANEOUS Adoption and Execution of Agreement in Accordance with Law. Each initial Signatory hereby represents to each other Initial Signatory that it has adopted and executed this Agreement in accordance with applicable law. Parties in Interest. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any Person other than the Initial Signatories and the Members any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement, this Agreement being intended to be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Initial Signatories and the Members. No Personal Liability. No covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement or any resolution or bylaw issued by the Board shall be deemed to by the covenant or agreement of an elected or appointed official, officer, agent, servant or employee of any Member in his or her individual capacity. Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all notices, certificates, requests, requisitions or other communications by the Authority, any Member, any Director, any Alternate Director, any Officer or any member of a Committee to any other such person pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing; shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when actually received, in the case of the Authority and officers of the Authority, at the last address designated by the Authority for such purpose and, in the case of such other persons, at the last address specified by them in writing to the Secretary of the Authority; and, unless a certain number of days is specified, shall be given within a reasonable period of time. Assignment. None of the rights or benefits of any Member may be assigned, nor may any of the duties or obligations of any Member be delegated, without the express written consent of all the Members. Severability. If any clause, provision, subsection, Section, or Article of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity, illegality or enforceability of such clause, provision, subsection, Section or Article shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement. Interpretation. Subject only to the express limitations set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be liberally construed to permit: May 17, 2022 - Page 248 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 21 (a) the Authority and the Members to exercise all powers that may be exercised by a regional transportation authority pursuant to the Act and by a separate legal entity created by a contract among the Members pursuant to the Intergovernmental Relations Statute; (b) the Members to exercise all powers that may be exercised by them with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement pursuant to the Act, the Intergovernmental Relations Statute and other applicable law; and (c) the Board to exercise all powers that may be exercised by the board of directors of a regional transportation authority pursuant to the Act and by the governing body of a separate legal entity created by a contract among the Members pursuant to the Intergovernmental Relations Statute. In the event of any conflict between the Act, the Intergovernmental Relations Statute or any other law with respect to the exercise of any such power, the provision that permits the broadest exercise of the power consistent with the limitations set forth in this Agreement shall control. Governing Law. The laws of the State shall govern the construction and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue for purposes of any litigation arising under this Agreement shall only be proper in the Eagle County District Court. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original; but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Agreement. [Remainder of page left intentionally blank. Signature pages follow.] May 17, 2022 - Page 249 of 549 April 2022 Draft (Public Hearing #1) 22 SIGNATURE PAGE to EAGLE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Dated as of [May 31, 2022] By: [INSERT], COLORADO By Name Title ATTEST May 17, 2022 - Page 250 of 549 APPENDIX A-1 Authority Boundary Map May 17, 2022 - Page 251 of 549 2!,!<!1!4!0!6!/!!!.!9!?!8!>!A6!,!5!0!!!.!9!?!8!>!A;!,!<!5!!!.!9!?!8!>!A=!?!7!7!4!>!!!.!9!?!8!>!A2!<!,!8!/!!!.!9!?!8!>!A=!?!7!7!4!>!!!.!9!?!8!>!A<!9!?!>!>!!!.!9!?!8!>!A&;4681%*.0,#*6*07"932)*/0’/27852(,+!$0/--,9/<583!(9<6!-</8=;9<>/>598!#?>49<5>B+<9;9=21!,-#$9?81/<B’1A/<1=*2><9&5=><50>$2<<B!%<226*2><9!&5=><50>#<<9A42/1*2><9&5=><50>$/04279<)?704*2><9&5=><50>’/372"./57*2><9!&5=><50>$2/@2<%<226*2><9&5=><50>)%$&$%’(#(#(#-.*!+4631/57,/502!$’"!%#%%>IJS!NBQ!WBS!DRFBTFE!CX!TIF!0BHMF!.PUOTX!24=!/FQBRTNFOT$?SF!PG!TIJS!NBQ!SIPUME!CF!GPR!HFOFRBM!QURQPSF!POMX$0BHMF!.PUOTX!EPFS!OPT!WBRRBOT!TIF!BDDURBDX!PG!TIF!EBTBDPOTBJOFE!IFRFJO$%’*"%%%&(")%%1FFT&!JODI!+!’("%%%!GFFT;RPQPSFE!<>,!-PUOEBRX>PWO!-PUOEBRX.PUOTX!-PUOEBRX=TRFFT!.FOTFRMJOF7BKPR!3JHIWBX,RRPWIFBE!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT-BDIFMPR!2UMDI!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT-FBVFR!.RFFL!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT-FRRX!.RFFL!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT0BHMF#@BJM!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT0EWBRES!7FTRPQPMJTBO!/JSTRJDT<PBRJOH!1PRL!>RBOSQPRTBTJPO!,UTIPRJTXMay 17, 2022 - Page 252 of 549 APPENDIX A-2 Authority Boundary Description May 17, 2022 - Page 253 of 549 I|lmfmx#E# xs#Rsxmgi#sj#Jsvqexmsr#sj#Vikmsrep#Xverwtsvxexmsr#Eyxlsvmx}# Pikep#Hiwgvmtxmsr#sj#VXE#Fsyrhevmiw# Fikmrrmrk#sr#xli#gsqqsr#xs{rwlmt#pmri#jsv#Xs{rwlmt#6#Wsyxl#erh#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl/#Verki#<3#[iwx#9xl Tvmrgmtep#Qivmhmer/#tsmrx#epws#fimrk#sr#xli#gsqqsr#fsyrhev}#pmri#sj#Iekpi#erh#Wyqqmx#Gsyrxmiw/# xlirgi#{iwx#epsrk#wemh#xs{rwlmt#pmri#xs#xli#R[#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#9#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<3# [1##Xlirgi#rsvxl#xs#xli#RI#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#4#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<4[1##Xlirgi#{iwx/#gsrjsvqmrk# xs#xli#rsvxl#fsyrhev}#sj#Xs{rwlmt#7/#Verkiw#<4/#<5#)#<6#[iwx#xs#xli#W[#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#69#Xs{rwlmt# 6#Verki#<6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#rsvxl#xs#xli#R[#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#69#Xs{rwlmt#6#Wsyxl#Verki#<6# [iwx1##Xlirgi#{iwx#xs#xli#R[#gsvriv#Wigxmsr#66#Xs{rwlmt#6#Wsyxl#Verki#<6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#wsyxl#xs#W[# gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#66#Xs{rwlmt#6#Verki#<6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#wsyxl#xs#xli#W[#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#7#Xs{rwlmt# 7#Wsyxl#Verki#<6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#wsyxl{iwxivp}#xs#xli#W[#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#<#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki# <6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#{iwx#xs#xli#R[#gsvriv#Wigxmsr#4<#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<6#[iwx1##Xlirgi#wsyxl#xs# xli#WI#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#46#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<7#[iwx1##Xlirgi#{iwx#epsrk#xli#wsyxl#pmriw#sj# Wigxmsrw#46/#47/#48/#49/#4;#)#4<#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<7#[iwx/#xli#wsyxl#pmriw#sj#Wigxmsrw#46/#47/#48/# 49/#4;#)#4<#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<8#[iwx/#erh#xli#wsyxl#pmriw#sj#Wigxmsrw#46/#47/#48/#49/#4;#)#4<# Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<9#[iwx#xs#xli#W[#gsvriv#Wigxmsr#4<#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<9# [iwx1##Xlirgi#wsyxl#xs#xli#RI#gsvriv#sj#Wigxmsr#57#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<;#[iwx1##Xlirgi#{iwxivp}# epsrk#xli#rsvxl#fsyrhev}#sj#Wigxmsrw#57#erh#56/#Xs{rwlmt#7#Wsyxl#Verki#<;#[iwx#xs#xli#gsqqsr# fsyrhev}#pmri#fix{iir#Iekpi#erh#Kevjmiph#Gsyrxmiw1##Xlirgi#wsyxlivp}#epsrk#xli#gsqqsr#fsyrhev}#pmri# fix{iir#Iekpi#erh#Kevjmiph#Gsyrxmiw#xs#xli#tsmrx#sj#mrxivwigxmsr#sj#xli#{iwxivr#fsyrhev}#sj#Iekpi# Gsyrx}#erh#xli#rsvxlivr#fsyrhev}#sj#xli#Vsevmrk#Jsvo#Xverwtsvxexmsr#Eyxlsvmx}1##Xlirgi#wsyxliewxivp}# jspps{mrk#xli#rsvxlivr#fsyrhev}#sj#xli#Vsevmrk#Jsvo#Xverwtsvxexmsr#Eyxlsvmx}#xs#xli#mrxivwigxmsr#sj#xli# Vsevmrk#Jsvo#Xverwtsvxexmsr#Eyxlsvmx}#erh#xli#wsyxlivp}#fsyrhev}#sj#Iekpi#Gsyrx}1##Xlirgi#iewxivp}# epsrk#xli#wsyxlivr#fsyrhev}#sj#Iekpi#Gsyrx}#xs#xli#tsmrx#sj#mrxivwigxmsr#sj#xli#gsqqsr#fsyrhev}#pmri# sj#Iekpi/#Peoi/#erh#Wyqqmx#Gsyrxmiw1##Xlirgi#rsvxlivp}#epsrk#xli#iewxivr#fsyrhev}#sj#Iekpi#Gsyrx}#xs# xli#tsmrx#sj#svmkmr1### May 17, 2022 - Page 254 of 549 APPENDIX B-1 Town of Avon Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 255 of 549 APPENDIX B-2 Beaver Creek Metropolitan District Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 256 of 549 APPENDIX B-3 Town of Eagle Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 257 of 549 APPENDIX B-4 Town of Gypsum Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 258 of 549 APPENDIX B-5 Town of Minturn Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 259 of 549 APPENDIX B-6 Town of Red Cliff Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 260 of 549 APPENDIX B-7 Town of Vail Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 261 of 549 APPENDIX B-8 Unincorporated Eagle County Question Ballot Question May 17, 2022 - Page 262 of 549 APPENDIX C Initial Service Goals May 17, 2022 - Page 263 of 549 Eagle Valley Transportation Authority Regional Transportation Service Goals The newly established Eagle Valley Transportation Authority, (“Authority”), shall use its best efforts to achieve the following: 1. Assume Responsibility for Existing ECO Transit Service The Authority shall assume responsibility for existing transit service as currently provided by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, (“ECO Transit”), as of January 1 of the year following RTA formation. Within 12 months of RTA formation, the Authority shall develop and implement a fare- free transit zone with expanded service, to include portions of Avon, Vail, Minturn and Beaver Creek, as a replacement for ECO’s existing Vail/Beaver Creek Express service. 2. Increase Service on Current ECO Routes The Authority shall begin planning for one or more of the following enhancements, to be introduced as soon as equipment, staffing, and facilities allow: ● Increased capacity and/or service frequency on Highway 6. ● Increased all-day service frequency on Valley Route, including additional daily connections to Dotsero. ● Increased service to/from Leadville. 3. Develop and Implement New Transit Routes The Authority shall develop and implement new transit service to meet needs identified during the RTA formation process, including but not limited to: 1) Eagle-Gypsum Circulator Regular transit service connecting the Towns of Eagle and Gypsum that promotes increased circulation in/between these communities and provides efficient connection to other regional routes. 2) Limited Stop Express Service Additional rush hour express service targeting peak workforce commute hours. In addition, the Authority may explore the feasibility of offering additional regional transit services as needs are identified in future Transit Development plans. 4. Accelerate Conversion of Fleet and Facilities to Zero-Emission Operations The Authority shall take the following steps toward zero-emission operations: May 17, 2022 - Page 264 of 549 1) Conversion of ECO’s existing Highway 6 bus service to a zero-emission platform, on a timeframe that evaluates available grant funds, anticipated increases in range and performance capacity of zero-emission buses, and allocation of available Authority funds to other expenditures which may increase ridership. 2) Development of zero-emission plans, timelines, and budgets for additional routes and facilities as outlined in an initial RTA Transit Development Plan, to be created following RTA formation. 5. Invest in Transit-Related Facilities and Infrastructure The Authority shall allocate a portion of available revenues to upgrade existing facilities to support planned service expansion. In addition, funds will be set aside in a capital improvement fund to support fleet replacement and future construction of essential transit-related and transit- supportive facilities. 6. Support Local Air Service The Authority shall pledge funding in the minimum amount of $1,200,000 dollars per year to support expanded year round air service for residents and visitors of Eagle County. 7. Regional Transportation System Planning The Authority shall embark on a 5-year Transit Development Plan (TDP) as one of its first tasks upon formation. This plan should be completed within 12-18 months of the appointment of the initial Authority Executive Director. May 17, 2022 - Page 265 of 549 APPENDIX D [ ] May 17, 2022 - Page 266 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 6, S eries of 2022, Second Reading, A n Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to E stablish Setbacks from Gore Creek and its Tributaries P RE S E NT E R(S ): P eter Wadden, Watershed E ducation Coodinator and Greg Roy, S enior P lanner AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon second reading. B AC K G RO UND: The Gore Creek Strategic P lan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” T he P lanning and E nvironmental Commission (P E C) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove second reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Second Reading of Ordinance No. 6 Staff Memo Attachment A. Narrative 4-19-22 Attachment B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 Attachment C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25' Map Attachment D. Community Feedback 5-4-22 Attachment E. P E C Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 Attachment F. P E C Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021 Attachment G. P E C Meeting Minutes 1-24-22 Attachment H. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 Attachment I. P E C Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022 Attachment J. P E C Meeting Minutes 3-14-22 Attachment K. Stream Corridor Presentation 5-17-22 May 17, 2022 - Page 267 of 549 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Second reading of an Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden Planner: Greg Roy I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden, is requesting a second reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon second reading. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Based on these recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and to protect crucial riparian habitat, the proposed changes would establish a “Two-Year Flood Line” (TYFL), where the setback would be measured from. The TYFL will be defined in the code as follows: “Two-Year Flood Line (“TYFL”): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution.” The TYFL primarily runs along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the TYFL varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the May 17, 2022 - Page 268 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 stream channel. It is a static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s original setback ordinance was adopted. A setback measurement based on the TYFL is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying widths. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100’) wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively, if the watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty- five feet (25’). As the goal is to protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language would not permit mowing, landscaping, grading, or other disturbance within ten feet (10’) of the TYFL, with exceptions. This ten-foot (10’) wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and streamside vegetation” as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. There would be allowances for access to the creek for each property. Each property would be able to maintain a path to the creek with certain limitations outlined in the proposed language. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. IV. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976 created the streambank setback regulations in place today. They required a minimum setback of thirty feet (30’) from the center of the established creek or stream channel and fifty feet (50’) from the centerline of Gore Creek. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan, adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016, identifies the loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The Plan recommends Town of Vail “update stream setbacks, riparian zones, vegetative buffer zones and other water quality objectives definitions and maps (Title 12 Review and Amendments).” The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) heard this application at seven different meetings and forwarded a recommendation of approval on March 14th, 2022. May 17, 2022 - Page 269 of 549 Town of Vail Page 3 The Town Council heard an introduction to this item at the April 5th Town Council meeting and passed the Ordinance on first reading on April 19th. V. 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 enhance the protection of Gore Creek as part of the town’s natural environment. The current setbacks are measured from the centerline of the creek, but depending on the width of the creek the streambank may or may not be protected. As the preservation of the streambank and its native vegetation is one of the three main ways to improve the water quality, it is wholly important to make sure the regulations ensure that protection. Having the setback measured from the TYFL will ensure that the native vegetation along the river is equally preserved. This application also furthers the specific purpose of the zoning regulations “To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features.” Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will further the Town’s adopted goals in the comprehensive plan as noted in the section above. This amendment was specifically recommended in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan as a way to further protect the creek. It also meets the goal of protecting the environment and water quality set forth in the Land Use Plan. The equal protection of the streambank is imperative to preserving and enhancing the water quality throughout the town. By changing the base of the setback measurement from the centerline to the TYFL, the sensitive area of Gore Creek and its tributaries will be consistently protected. Adding the limited disturbance to the first ten feet ensures that the sensitive area adjacent to the water is preserved to the greatest extent possible. This will allow for the natural filtration of water and other processes to take place before reaching the creek. Staff performed further analysis of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and found that the proposal was not contrary to anything adopted in the comprehensive plan. May 17, 2022 - Page 270 of 549 Town of Vail Page 4 Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 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 current regulations were set with the best information available in 1976, almost 50 years ago. Since then, new studies and best management practices have evolved and improved. The existing setbacks have no regulation on what can happen inside of the setback. It is now recognized that the area between the development and the creek is vitally important to the health and function of the creek. The proposed code change incorporates the best practices known today to establish an acceptable setback that protects Gore Creek and its water quality. The research that went into the Gore Creek Strategic plan looked at comparable studies and the suggested setbacks to maintain creek health. The findings suggested buffers of anywhere from 30 to 330 feet along the creek. This proposal is a modest setback that attempts to strike a balance between the character of Vail and the protection of its natural resources. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and One of the decision-making factors going into the proposed setback was the relation to the other setbacks throughout the town and crafting a proposal that would be harmonious with other sections of the Town Code. The proposed setback was one of several studied options that rose to the top as the most practical solution that would fit into existing regulations. In reference to Section 14 on design regulations and allowed encroachments into setbacks, the 25-foot setback provided for the encroachments from that section while allowing plenty of room to keep a protected area adjacent to the creeks. Staff further reviewed the development objectives of the Town to find how this proposal would or would not be furthering those objectives. Of the four Land Use and Development goals in the Strategic 2020 plan, one of the goals is “Land use and development decisions will address environmental sustainability as a priority of the community”. The other three goals mention consistency in the development review process, providing deed restricted housing, and updating land use documents. Goal #2 stated above seems to be the only relevant goal to apply to the review of this application. The language suggests that environmental sustainability should be a priority for the community and thus would support an application that furthers that goal. This application furthers environmental sustainability by providing additional protections to Gore Creek in the form of a consistent setback. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment conforms to this criterion. May 17, 2022 - Page 271 of 549 Town of Vail Page 5 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. VI. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, upon second reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council pass the following motion: "The Vail Town Council approves, on second reading, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, an ordinance to amend Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to establish setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043)” Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Town Council makes the following findings: “Based upon a review of Section VII of the March 14, 2022 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant Narrative, 4-19-2022 B. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2022 C. Comparison of Stream Setback Options 25’ Map D. Community Feedback E. PEC Meeting Minutes 9-27-2021 F. PEC Meeting Minutes 10-25-2021 May 17, 2022 - Page 272 of 549 Town of Vail Page 6 G. PEC Meeting Minutes 1-24-2022 H. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-14-2022 I. PEC Meeting Minutes 2-28-2022 J. PEC Meeting Minutes 3-14-2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 273 of 549 To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Environmental Sustainability Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Narrative- Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance The Gore Creek Strategic Plan (The Plan), adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2016, directs staff to “update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions and maps” in order to reverse “the loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, which reduces the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from the effects of land use activities and urban runoff.” To that end, staff has undertaken a thorough review of the scientific literature concerning best practices in riparian buffers, regulations adopted by other communities around the state, and the situation on the ground in Vail to propose an ordinance designed to accomplish the objectives required by The Plan. Goals of proposed Code Changes The proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance seeks to: • Create a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for building and riparian setbacks on private property in Vail • Promote the establishment of a contiguous riparian buffer along Gore Creek and its tributaries • Limit turfgrass and hardscape and deter excessive chemical use within a delineated buffer zone To be successful, the ordinance must meet the following criteria: 1. Establish a net increase in the amount of riparian buffer o A robust riparian buffer throughout town is the strongest tool available to protect Gore Creek from pollutants such as landscaping chemicals and road runoff 2. Establish a net increase in the distance of buildings and structures from Gore Creek and its tributaries o As Vail developed over the past 60 years, structures were built very close to Gore Creek and its tributaries, leaving little space for riparian habitat. Establishing an adequate and equitable building setback will help resolve this problem over time 3. Have a clear, objective and measurable baseline in the field o The baseline for setbacks must not be subjective or open to interpretation. It needs to be clearly defined in order to be effective. 4. Be consistent, fair and equitable o A setback based on Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is more equitable because it does not vary based on the width of the creek. May 17, 2022 - Page 274 of 549 Based on those criteria, and through an extensive stakeholder process, staff have determined that a twenty-five foot (25’) building setback and ten foot (10’) riparian setback from an elevation-based Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) are the most appropriate for Vail. Scientific and practical basis for a twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL Town staff undertook extensive review of the likely effectiveness and impacts of setbacks of various widths and determined a twenty-five (25’) foot building setback from TYFL is most appropriate for several reasons. 1. A contiguous buffer of diverse, native riparian vegetation along waterways in Vail is the single greatest tool available to restore Gore Creek. Riparian buffers filter runoff, reduce erosion and sedimentation, shade waterways, and provide crucial habitat for myriad species. While riparian areas make up less than 4% of the habitat area in Colorado, more than 80% of Colorado animal species depend on riparian habitat at some point in their lifecycles. Riparian buffers perform services that cannot be replicated through engineered or manufactured means. Protecting and restoring these buffer zones is the most cost-effective and efficient tool available to a community to protect its waterways. 2. Twenty-five feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest five-foot increment building setback that would not decrease the area along Vail’s streams and waterways protected from development. A twenty-foot (20’) setback from TYFL would be a step in the wrong direction when it comes to protection of aquatic resources. Setback scenario Number of non- conforming properties Acres protected from development Existing (centerline) 102 26.27 25 feet from TYFL 128 30.83 30 feet from TYFL 165 36.72 Figure 1. Number of non-conforming properties and acres protected from development under various setback scenarios. Importantly, twenty-five feet (25’) best approximates existing, centerline-based setbacks without reducing them. Attached maps show that a twenty -five-foot (25’) setback line from TYFL closely tracks the existing thirty-foot (30’) (tributary) and fifty foot (50’) (Gore Creek) setbacks through mos t of town. 3. A smaller setback would create conflict with existing defensible space recommendations provided by Vail Fire Department. The Town’s Fire Resistant Planting Guide recommends “no coniferous trees within fifteen feet (15’) of the structure.” A twenty-five-foot (25’) setback from TYFL is the minimum building setback required in order to establish a ten-foot (10’) no mow zone from TYFL and not conflict with existing fire wise guidelines. Evergreen tre es are an important part of a healthy riparian habitat. They are also a major concern when establishing defensible space around a structure. A twenty-five-foot (25’) building setback is the smallest available that avoids that conflict. 4. Twenty-five-feet (25’) from TYFL is the smallest setback adopted by any other community in Colorado. As the Premier Mountain Resort Community in Colorado and a leader in environmental sustainability, this is the absolute least that can be done to protect G ore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed text changes in the attached memorandum have been thoroughly vetted and discussed. As May 17, 2022 - Page 275 of 549 such they allow for some exceptions that other Colorado communities do not accommodate in their riparian and wetland setbacks, including a “creek access path.” Jurisdiction Stream/Wetland Setback Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank Eagle County 75 feet from bank Pitkin County 100 feet from bank Aspen Additional review within 100 feet of bank Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from bank Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from bank Colbran 100 feet from bank Summit County 25 feet from bank Figure 2. Selected setbacks codified by other Colorado municipalities 5. Twenty-five feet (25’) is the minimum recommended buffer zone identified in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. Scientific literature cited in the Plan recommends that native vegetation within twenty - five feet (25’) of the streambank be “left undisturbed.” Establishment of Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) in Vail The Two-Year Flood Line proposed in this ordinance is based on specific elevations above sea level. While alternative methods to determine TYFL exist, methods based on bank scouring, vegetation, and erosion are more subjective and can be manipulated. Two surveyors or wetland scientists working in earnest could establish different TYFL delineations along the same reach of stream. An elevation- based TYFL is the better approach if Vail wishes to avoid conflicting delineations and establish a regulation which can be applied fairly, consistently and equitably. Based on the above recommendations from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and with the intention of protecting crucial riparian habitat the proposed changes would establish a new stream setback and change where the setback is measured from. The new setback would be measured from the “Two-Year Flood Line” (TYFL), which would be defined in the code as follows. “The Two-Year Flood Line (TYFL) is the average 2 year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the dataset adopted by Town Council by resolution.” The TYFL is primarily along what would be commonly called the “bank” of the creek or watercourse. While the centerline of the creek may change on a daily or weekly basis, the TYFL varies on a longer timescale due to bank erosion and changes to the stream channel. It is a more static baseline from which to measure the setback and has become the industry standard in the decades since Vail’s setback ordinance was adopted. The TYFL in Vail will be determined on the ground by Professional Land Survey. The procedures for surveying the TYFL are similar to the procedures for surveying the 100-year floodplain line. The Town of Vail will publish elevations for the TYFL that are determined through Professional Engineering and May 17, 2022 - Page 276 of 549 hydraulic modeling procedures. These engineering procedures are similar to those used to develop the Base Flood Elevations (BFE) published by FEMA. Most properties that will require survey of the TYFL also require survey of the 100-yr floodplain line defined by Vail Town Code. A setback measurement based on TYFL is also more equitable among properties adjacent to reaches of stream of varying width. The effective setback from the watercourse based on the centerline is wholly dependent on how wide the watercourse is in that location. If the watercourse is one hundred feet (100’) wide in one location the setback would permit building up to the bank of the watercourse. Comparatively if the watercourse is fifty feet (50’) wide, the effective setback from the bank would be twenty-five feet (25’). As the goal is protect the watercourse, the best way to achieve that goal is to have a consistent setback from the bank of the watercourse, which can be distinguished by the average two-year flood line. The proposed language also includes the addition of a “Riparian Zone”. This ten -foot (10’) wide portion of the setback would be a protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials. The Gore Creek Strategic Plan identifies “loss of riparian and streamside vegetation” as one of the three main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek. The proposed riparian setback seeks to reverse this trend by establishing a contiguous corridor of healthy, native vegetation along Gore Creek and its tributaries. The proposed code change would remove the section on the setbacks from the watercourse from the Supplemental Regulations in Section 14 and the new setback language would be inserted in Section 21 on Hazards to be consistent with the location of the floodplain regulations. Non-conformity to foster change over time Nonconforming status is used to create change over time. It is a natural progression that occurs as a community’s regulations evolve. Non-conformity fosters change without triggering the need for property owners to make an immediate change or upgrade to the property. It has been used with great success in Vail in the past to implement long-term changes for the betterment of the community. One example of an appropriately used nonconforming process is the code language governing wood shake roof shingles. Much of Vail was developed prior to the awareness of the value of protecting streams and water bodies with adequate buffers. In recent years the Vail community has come to recognize the importance of riparian buffers in protecting our waterways from pollution, providing shade and habitat. Adoption of a new building setback which adheres to modern best practices in waterbody protection and is implemented over time through the town’s regulations on non-conforming properties is an equitable way to act on those changing values. In addition to protecting waterways from pollution and erosion, healthy riparian buffers will enhance the resiliency of these ecosystems in the face of a changing climate. Water quality improvement and bank stabilization Addition of vegetation and grading which conform with best management practices would be permitted under the proposed ten foot (10’) vegetative setback. Vail Town Code allows a property owner to add new plants to their landscaping without a permit. Exceptions within the proposed code language below allow the Design Review Board to permit construction of “erosion control measures and stream grade control structures” providing they follow industry best practices. Rain gardens, bioswales and constructed wetlands are typically considered “best management practices” (BMPs) in watershed management, erosion control and stormwater treatment. May 17, 2022 - Page 277 of 549 1 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek; WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016 identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order: TWO-YEAR FLOOD LINE ("TYFL"): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution. Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows: 12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore Creek and its named tributaries and by mitigating hazards associated with the deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries. B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, in whole or in part; provided that this Section shall not apply to any stream tract already protected by Chapter 14 of Title 5 of this Code. May 17, 2022 - Page 278 of 549 2 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX C. Setbacks: 1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall be permitted within ten (10) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this Code; b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation; c. With approval of the Design Review Board, the installation and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four (4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a permeable base; d. Public roadways, public bridges, public recreational paths and trails, and public parks and open spaces; e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements; f. With approval of the Design Review Board, erosion control measures, stream grade-control structures and riparian restoration activities that conform with bank stabilization best management practices; and g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways, landscaping features, furniture and similar improvements lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Section 14-10-4 of this Code; and b. Buildings and structures lawfully established on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. D. Corrections: 1. If a property owner wishes to correct the location of a designated TYFL affecting such property owner's property, the property owner shall submit sufficient documentation to the Community Development Department to support the property owner's corrected May 17, 2022 - Page 279 of 549 3 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX delineation of the TYFL. The submittal shall comply with all of the following standards: a. The submittal shall include a survey stamped by a licensed Colorado surveyor. b. The survey shall include at least 3 cross sections, perpendicular to the flow of the stream, in the same vertical and horizontal datum as that referenced in the Town's data set, extending from beyond the 100 year flood line on one bank to beyond the 100 year flood line on the opposite bank and including all stream channels. The 3 cross sections shall be taken at each property boundary and the center of the property. c. The survey shall include an adequate number of elevation points for each cross section to accurately reflect the contours of the stream bed. d. The survey shall tie into National Geologic Survey control points. e. The submittal shall include a site map or aerial image showing locations of stream cross sections, and photographs of the location of each stream cross section. f. The submittal shall include a model of the TYFL using the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System ("HEC- RAS"), stamped by a professional engineer. 2. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete submittal, the Town shall correct the location of the TYFL on the property as indicated on the submittal. E. Variances. The setbacks set forth in this Section are subject to the variance process set forth in Chapter 17 of this Title. F. Violation and Penalty: 1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Section. 2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this Section. 3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of May 17, 2022 - Page 280 of 549 4 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a separate offense. 4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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. Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2023. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ___ day of ____________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 281 of 549 5 4/13/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\PLANNING\GREG\PEC CASES\21\PEC21-0043\ORDINANCE NO. 6 SERIES OF 2020\STREAM SETBACK-O41322.DOCX READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ____ day of ________________, 2022. _______________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 282 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 283 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 284 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 285 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 286 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 287 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 288 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing SetbacksOrdinary High Water Mark 25' from Ordinary High Water Mark May 17, 2022 - Page 289 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 290 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 291 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 292 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 293 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 294 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 295 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 296 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 297 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 298 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 299 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 300 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 301 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 302 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 303 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 304 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 305 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 306 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 307 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 308 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 309 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 310 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 311 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 312 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 313 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 314 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 315 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 316 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 317 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 318 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 319 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 320 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 321 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 322 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 323 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 324 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 325 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 326 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 327 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 328 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 329 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 330 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 331 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 332 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 333 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 334 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 335 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 336 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 337 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 338 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 339 of 549 C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N S C O M PA R I S O N O F S T R E A M S E T B A C K O P T I O N ST O W N O F VA I L T O W N O F VA I L I 0 15075 Feet This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Team. Use of this map should be for general purposes only.(where shown, parcel line work is approximate) Data Sources:Aerial imagery acquired by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (flown in May, 2018)Approximate property lines provided by Eagle County Assessor DepartmentOrdinary High Water Mark as delineated by River Restoration (2020) Last Modified: March 17, 2021 Existing Setbacks Two Year Flood Line25' from Two Year Flood Line May 17, 2022 - Page 340 of 549 April 5, 2021 Honorable Dave Chapin Vail Town Council pwadden@vailgov.com Town of Vail transmitted via email 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members: The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District applauds the Vail Town Council for supporting staff in moving forward with drafting a stream corridor protection ordinance. The Town of Vail and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District have worked collaboratively on improving Gore Creek water quality since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado’s 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. Since the listing, our collective staffs have completed the 2012 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, and are in the midst of completing the Gore Creek Watershed Source Water Protection Plan. While each plan has built on the previous plan and targeted specific outcomes, they all point to the need for a stream corridor protection ordinance. Increasing the riparian buffer adjacent to Gore Creek and its tributaries, limiting turfgrass and hardscape within the buffer zone, reiterating statewide pesticide regulations in the TOV municipal code, and enforcing the code will greatly enhance what has become the Restore the Gore movement. The long term benefits of the proposed ordinance will be far reaching. Improvement to overall aquatic ecosystem health and habitat are expected to build on, and multiply, the recent successes of the programs noted above. Improved shading will reduce stream temperatures during the critical brown trout spawning season and will promote stream health by maintaining low daytime temperatures. Reduced hardscapes and turfgrass will improve the ability of the floodplain area to store and infiltrate runoff and will benefit both flood volumes and water quality. All forms of recreation experiences will improve; the more natural riparian corridor will be noticed by all who recreate on Gore Creek and its tributaries. As the water and wastewater service provider for the Town of Vail and communities downstream on the Eagle River, we are committed to a sustainable and healthy river system. The District is committed to supporting the Town’s efforts in drafting and implementing the stream corridor ordinance through continued collaboration, education and outreach, and ongoing water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling and monitoring. We are fortunate to live in Colorado’s headwaters and be the first users of the water; preserving the water quality for downstream users as well as future generations directly ties to our organization’s shared value of environmental stewardship. W e are excited with the current momentum behind the Restore the Gore movement and look forward to our continued collaboration and partnership. Sincerely, Linn Brooks General Manager May 17, 2022 - Page 341 of 549 461 Railroad Ave, Unit C PO Box 1477 Gypsum, Colorado 81637 970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#: 20-4448864 Protecting our rivers since 2004 Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects. Honorable Dave Chapin Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 commdev@vailgov.com RE: Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance November 9, 2021 Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed amendments to Town of Vail’s (TOV) municipal code for watercourse setbacks and riparian protection. This action has features and merits that touch on many community-wide issues including our values surrounding streams and the environment, private and public land uses of near-stream areas, and perceived economic impacts to landowners. Our comments remain primarily concerned with anticipated benefits to water quality, ecosystem health, and the long-term and (hopefully) permanent benefits for the town’s citizens and Gore Creek. Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) advocates for the health of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River watersheds to protect and enhance the high-quality natural and human values provided by rivers. Vigorously protecting our aquatic ecosystems ensures they will continue to provide their numerous social, economic, and ecosystem benefits in perpetuity. Gore Creek is the largest tributary of the Eagle River, dear to the hearts of everyone in the valley and visitors alike. It has faced numerous water quality and wildlife habitat challenges over time due to urban development and the presence of the interstate corridor. A mountain of work has been invested by the town, community members, and organizational partners like ERWC and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) in recent years to correct and restore conditions in the stream. More work remains, and the current matter before the town is a vital component to achieving lasting success. Current issues at hand ERWC’s understanding of the current ordinance proposal, based on public information and interactions with town staff, is that staff is recommending the following changes to existing code: • Use of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) instead of centerline as the baseline for measuring setback distance, • Utilization of the 2-year flood elevation, as estimated through industry-standard statistical engineering techniques and hydrologic inundation modelling, as the regulatory representation of the OHWM, • Changing building setbacks from the current 50’ from the stream centerline instead to 25’ from the OHW M, and; May 17, 2022 - Page 342 of 549 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 2 of 5 • Protecting a naturalized/non-mowed vegetation buffer for the first 10’ of the setback as the riparian zone. ERWC background with Town of Vail riparian protections and Gore Creek water quality ERWC has a long history with Gore Creek issues, working in partnership with TOV and local and regional entities like ERWSD, US Forest Service, US Geological Survey, CO-Dept. of Transportation, and CO-Dept of Public Health & Environment to study water quality impairments on Gore Creek and develop strategies to address and reverse these issues. Local partnerships in the original Urban Runoff Group helped produce both the 2013 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan and the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. ERWC staff and partners contributed countless hours towards the completion of these efforts, which have culminated in numerous positive actions to-date by TOV to realize the vision laid out by the community. In 2016, the town began the process of implementing town recommendations, identifying nearly $9 million in potential future allocations for stormwater improvements, riparian restorations, and other stream protections. Since that time, the town has ‘walked the walk’ in changing its own land use practices, increasing community fluency on Gore Creek water quality issues through numerous education/outreach campaigns, and undergoing an at-times difficult and contentious social process of reclaiming and naturalizing encroached public stream tract lands. Given the context of this work and the hard lessons learned, ERWC believes the town is well supported by its own history of action to take this next step and institutionalize these strongly- held community water quality values in updated town code. While education/outreach is an important strategy towards public acceptance of permanent solutions like code changes, over time it can become an impossible task without support from regulations. In communities like Vail, where property ownership turnover is very high, and many vacation properties have absentee ownership, constant re-education of the next generation of streamside homeowners is required. While education is one of the primary mandates of ERWC’s mission, we also readily believe that ordinance and code is sometimes where the ‘rubber hits the road’ so to speak in terms of our communities making good on their stated values surrounding environmental protections and functional ecosystems. In the context of all this past work, ERWC supports the maximum possible setback distance as the preferred choice for code adoption. The best-available current science would support an even larger setback if it were likely to be socially and economically acceptable to the community. We further support the maintenance of the initial portion of the setback in a naturalized vegetation state of un-mowed, native plant communities. Preservation of riparian zones for water quality is firmly science-based Science-based research and entities charged with supporting communities nationwide in protecting our water resources, such as the US EPA, have repeatedly advocated the value and function of riparian zones. The proposed amendments are somewhat less than the distances that a significant body of research recommends, which begin around 30 feet and, depending on the desired water quality protective functions, approach 100 feet in many instances. The proposed setback represents a reasonable compromise in the constant push-and-pull between ecosystem health and social uses that has occurred throughout Vail’s development period. It recognizes the difficult situation that overhauling Vail’s existing urban core and neighborhood development footprints already presents to the community’s current leadership. Any dilution and weakening of the proposed setback will reduce its efficacy and likely result in a degraded ability to protect Gore Creek and tributaries. May 17, 2022 - Page 343 of 549 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 3 of 5 Community-backed action to permanently protect streams The Gore Creek Action Plan identified 27 immediate action items and over 200 total action items to protect and improve stream health. It recommended TOV update its stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone, and other water quality objective definitions in its code. Of the 27 items characterized as ‘high priority’, updating this specific code language was recognized in Priority Action 2 and Priority Action 9, and it has significant nexus with Actions 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. This represents nearly 30% of the plan’s High Priority Actions targeting the importance of riparian protections and increasing (over time and only during redevelopment opportunities), the distance that we build structures and landscape from streams. In addition to the multi-year process endured by the town staff, PEC, and council members to study and create these cornerstone environmental guidance documents, a community advisory group of many of the town’s longest residents contributed countless volunteer hours to their completion and vetting. These changes to code represent the full realization of the values and effort embodied in these plans from your own citizens and prior PEC and Council members. The past societal tendency to view streams, including Gore Creek, merely as aesthetic features to be manipulated for architectural desires or purely for the enjoyment of streamside landowners, should be left to the past. By passing this ordinance, the community’s values surrounding our rivers and streams will be locked-in via law, rather than just receiving mention in non-binding visioning documents. Scientific basis for the exchangeability between the Ordinary High-Water Mark and the Two-Year Flood elevation for land use decisions In reviewing the public discourse from PEC meetings and the questions fielded to commissioners and town staff, it is apparent that much confusion may exist regarding the usability of the 2-year flood mark for permitting, and its substitutability for the OHWM. Federal law has established a definition for the OHW M, which has received various legal clarifications over time, and is frequently used by US Army Corps of Engineers in Clean Water Act permitting activities and other agency duties. This definition relies on the presence of physically-identifiable signs such as vegetation changes and soil characteristics that can be reasonably and relatively consistently identified during field investigations. State laws and agencies have generally followed suit with this definition, often with modifications reflective of local needs, to help delineate public-rights-of-way and riparian landowner rights. In practice, these field indicators are typically determined by domain experts (engineers, scientists, landscape architects, planners, etc.) and translated to usable survey and design datasets for development activities. The OHW M also has a strong relationship to the bankfull stage or bankfull flow, a term of importance in the fields of hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Like OHWM, bankfull stage can also be defined in several ways, but is most-frequently defined as the height of water in its natural channel at its largest flows, just prior to incipient flooding of adjacent floodplains. Bankfull stage is also typically identified by a concurrent set of field observations that consider one or more indicators such as the top of point and lateral bars, changes or inflections in bank slope, vegetation clues, and erosional features. This elevation frequently is then identified at long-term USGS stream gauging stations and correlated with a specific stream discharge value and annual flood return frequency. Flood frequency analysis is a hydrologic or engineering statistical technique used to predict specific return periods or probabilities for a given stream flow value. It involves taking a record of annual high flows from a stream gauge, ranking them in order, fitting them to a statistical distribution curve (distributions often used are Weibull, log- normal, Log-Pearson III, etc.), and using this fitted curve to predict particular flood return May 17, 2022 - Page 344 of 549 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 4 of 5 probabilities of interest, i.e. the “100-year”, “500-year”, “50-year”, “10-year”, “2-year” return flows. These values are used to determine FEMA floodplains, and similar techniques are also used by engineers to size stream culverts or stormwater appurtenances such as vaults and outflow pipes. These days, the computations are done in complex software that can use the flood return frequencies of interest to produce 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional representations of the land areas that will be inundated at different flows. Return periods for the bankfull flow in Colorado may range from as little as a year to over five years or more in some locations. However, it is accepted in the hydrologic study and planning domains to use 1.5 or 2 years as a proxy for the bankfull stage that is responsible for maintaining the ‘active channel’ portion of the stream channel. The ‘active channel’ is highly analogous to the field-observed OHWM. The most-often used value in fluvial geomorphic work including physical channel restoration design is a 1.5-year return flow. In this regard, the 2-year value proposed by TOV staff is slightly more conservative towards water quality protection, as this will be a slightly higher water surface elevation. As noted above, water surface inundation elevations can be readily modelled in standard software created and used by US Army Corps of Engineers (i.e. HEC-RAS and other modelling packages). Any private civil engineering firm, hydrologic firm, or government planning office that has the technical capacity to perform this variety of work can produce survey-grade mapping outputs from publicly-available datasets that are usable by town staff, surveyors, and private planners. Although the model flood elevation results can be subject to change over time based on the datasets used, in the confined stream channel types present around Vail these changes should be largely insignificant over a multi-decadal time scale, except in cases of rapid or extreme channel re-alignments or avulsions associated with major flooding events, or in large areas of unconfined floodplain such as the Katsos preserve. Since the typical definition of OHWM is generally familiar to many technically-trained staff in the planning and engineering fields and is derived from field observations that are fairly responsive to individual site characteristics and conditions, it can be seen as advantageous for use. However, like most field methods, it can be just as fraught in practice and subject to individual bias or manipulation as any other. Gore Creek is a dynamic system, with annual spring flood magnitudes from snowmelt that are typically two orders of magnitude (100 times) the fall and winter baseflows. The stream system has high sediment transport dynamics (meaning it carries and re-distributes a lot of sand, gravel, and cobbles each year) and has undergone hugely significant human alterations to natural channel shapes between the mid-twentieth century and present day. Bank erosion, shifting gravel bars, and significant episodic lateral channel movements are all ‘typical’ or ‘normal’ within these mountain systems. At times, this can make the classical physically-observable clues for the OHWM difficult to discern and open to changing over time, and therefore potentially unreliable indicators of flow elevations and unreliable for consistent application in land use administration decisions. The modelled 2-year flood elevation, with provisions or a process in place for local adjustment based on individual site circumstances, may serve as a more-consistent and easier to administer benchmark. For the purposes of administering town land use decisions and protecting streamside riparian zones for water quality and habitat function, it appears to ERWC that the proposed definition utilizing a surveyable 2-year flood elevation is functionally and practically equivalent to the current physical-clues definition. If town staff believes that it will be a more-efficient and a relatively more-objective means to administer land use decisions than repeated individual site investigations for OHWM May 17, 2022 - Page 345 of 549 Eagle River Watershed Council, Page 5 of 5 determination, then ERWC supports this approach as it is a technically defensible and functionally adequate (and practical) substitute. Considerations of regulatory takings ERWC provides no claim of thorough understanding of the legal issues involved in what does or does not constitute a regulatory takings, and it is not our intent to provide legal advice to the town about the current issues, only convey our opinion as a community stakeholder. However, it is apparent that some residents (or their attorney representatives) have suggested the proposed ordinance changes represent a regulatory takings, potentially requiring compensation to land owners. It is our observation that town building codes already place a wide variety of requirements and constraints on homeowners that have not been challenged as creating a takings, and it is unclear why this proposal is materially or substantively different than those cases. TOV code examples that restrict, constrain, or control property owner’s development rights on private land currently include: property line setbacks, road setbacks, roofline heights, stylistic and architectural design reviews, limitations on impervious area and developable lot percentages, limitations on parking, specification of landscaping requirements, etc. Any of these items could have been construed to impact property investment values or restrict the exercise of private property rights by landowners, yet none has been successfully challenged as a takings. Those examples of code restrictions derive from a variety of safety and/or aesthetic/social concerns and have been accepted by community members over time. Building regulations associated with the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (i.e., the 100-year floodplain) also currently place significant existing constraints on near-stream structures and have not been held as a regulatory takings by courts in any state to our knowledge. Arguments over takings are diverting from the important issues at hand of protection of public environmental assets. Concluding remarks Riparian protections and setbacks are a science-based but socially-adjusted implementation of the values Vail community members and TOV municipal leadership have articulated repeatedly over many years in multiple plans and government actions. Institutionalizing these strongly held community values regarding water quality, stream protections, and ecosystem protection and function is the logical and correct next step in the town’s path to restoration of Gore Creek health and its tributaries. ERWC supports the adoption of the ordinance in full, including the maximum possible setback at 25’ or more, and inclusion of a naturalized vegetation zone of 10’ at water edge. We encourage the PEC to move this matter to Council in its current form and push for adoption in the earliest reasonable timeframe. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have questions regarding our statements, or require additional information to aid your decision-making process, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Holly Loff Bill Hoblitzell Executive Director Water Resources Program advisory staff loff@erwc.org bill@lotichydrological.com May 17, 2022 - Page 346 of 549 Carrie S. Bernstein csb@ablawcolorado.com 720.460.4203 October 20, 2021 Via E-mail: PWadden@vailgov.com Mr. Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail, Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Town of Vail Application for Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance/Proposed Amendment to Section 12-14-17 and Creation of Section 12-21-17 of Vail Town Code (“Application”) Dear Mr. Wadden: Our firm represents Reggie D. Delponte Residence Trust No. 1 and Reggie D. Delponte Resident Trust No. 2, the owners of property located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive in Vail. We are in receipt of the September 27, 2021, Memorandum concerning the referenced Application and submit the following objections to the Town’s proposal in advance of the public hearing scheduled for October 25, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. We request that you include this objection letter in the packet in advance of the public hearing. As we understand the Application, the Town of Vail (“Town”) is requesting approval of a regulation that will delete the Vail Town Code (“Code”) Section 12-14-17 altogether and add a new regulation, Section 12-21-17, which will significantly “change the waterbody setbacks” of Gore Creek. Initially, the new regulation in Section 12-21-17 is inconsistent with the purpose of Chapter 21 of the Code. The stated purpose of Chapter 21 is: [T]o 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 to further regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, May 17, 2022 - Page 347 of 549 Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 2 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. The Application was submitted in order to address insufficient “quantify or diversity of insects” in Gore Creek, and “loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation.” See letter from Town, dated August 23, 2021, referencing “Notice of Stream Tract Encroachment,” and Application, page 3. There is no evidence of any concerns in the Gore Creek area related to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, or wildfire hazard areas, and are not part of the Town’s defined “geologically sensitive areas,” as defined in the Code, Section 12-21-13. More problematic, however, is that the proposal will prohibit nearly all use of private property within an undefined and inconsistent area. The proposal states that “no work” may be done within the no disturbance area, including landscaping or “disturbance,” which is undefined. As shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25’ use prohibition extends into backyards and existing building footprints in many areas, beyond the existing setback. The Town’s proposal would prohibit any use of these areas. Although certain uses in these areas (“existing features and structures”) might fall under the Town’s nonconforming use regulation (Section 12-18), other continued uses must cease altogether, including mowing and landscaping. That means that the new Section 12-21-17 will be retroactively applied to existing property rights and uses along Gore Creek that existed prior to its enactment. Except for those existing “features and structures” within the 25’ prohibited area, property owners can no longer continue their current landscaping or mowing of 25’ of their property. Colorado law prohibits such retrospective legislation. Further, any changes to existing uses, including structures, that would be permissible under the current Code, are prohibited if the Application is approved. If, for example, our clients wanted to add to or expand their current patio by just one foot or add a firepit, the new Section 12-21-17 prohibits such a change because, on our clients’ property, the 25’ mark extends up to their patio and home. Moreover, the proposed Section 12-21-17 does not describe how landowners are to determine the required non-disturbance areas, as there is no existing and uniform survey of the Original High Water Mark (“OHWM”). The OHWM will change over time and landowners have May 17, 2022 - Page 348 of 549 Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 3 no way of complying with use restrictions if the non-disturbance area changes annually or bi- annually. Further, the proposal will impact significantly more property than the Gore Creek beds. The non-disturbance areas do not follow the creek alone, but also circumvent stream banks and eddies that result in significant loss of property rights through use restrictions that are not related to the Gore Creek OHWM. Once again, as shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25’ line prohibits use of private property in many areas that are not within 25’ of Gore Creek. Finally, the Application, if approved, will constitute a compensable regulatory taking of private properties. The Town’s proposal imposes a very high interference with private property rights in the area of Gore Creek and its streams and eddies, prohibiting any use of those areas, which constitutes a compensable taking. Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm’rs, 38 P.3d 59, 65 (Colo. 2001). Owners of these properties, such as our clients, have an investment-backed expectation to use and develop their own backyards, which is protected under Colorado law. G&A Land, LLC v. City of Brighton, 233 P.3d 701, 706 (Colo. App. 2010). If the Town is intent on ensuring an area of no disturbance of 25 feet from the banks of Gore Creek, it must acquire those property rights through eminent domain and pay just compensation to property owners, including our clients. Just compensation under these circumstances will be costly to the Town because, for most owners, including our clients, the property will essentially lose its most valuable attribute – frontage along Gore Creek – and the value of such properties may diminish by up to one-half. For the reasons described above, our client opposes the Application, and we urge the Town to deny the request therein. Very truly yours, ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC Carrie S. Bernstein cc: Reggie D. Delponte (via email) May 17, 2022 - Page 349 of 549 From:Pedro Campos To:Peter Wadden Cc:Tim Halbakken; Jesse Gregg; Caroline Schoeller Subject:RE: A request for your input - Zehren and Associates reply and input. Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:36:09 PM Hi Pete, Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. I’ve asked our staff to review and here is a synopsis of our feedback, compiled by Tim Halbakken: First off we recognize and appreciate your passion for these issues. Tim, Jesse and I have all participated in Restore the Gore presentations you have made and it is clear the Town has the right person tackling these issues. As local invested professionals and residents ‘downstream’ we feel it's an important and interesting cause that the TOV and the environmental and sustainability department is pursuing. All three measures you are pursuing are well supported and well documented by the research. We assume that the Town Council has directed your team to develop these type of ordinances and its seems you are well on your way with the activities planned in May We are particularly supportive of adopting the state pesticide regulations at the local level, thus allowing enforcement by town officials. We can think of a number of offending properties that could be approached and then supported (possibly financially) to turn their riparian edge back to a natural state. As documented, the reduction of pesticides has had the most immediate and direct impact on stream health, and so we strongly support enforcement. It is interesting that the last documented enforcement case was in 2015, possibly an indication that more frequent / periodic audits may be necessary. The centerline offset argument makes a lot of sense as well. From prior experience it's too difficult to define and it makes more sense to do an offset from the normal annual high water mark (AHWM) Initially with the riparian zone requirement, we initially contemplated that the prevalent reaction might be: "that's going to be considered a taking". However, additional research and homework reveals that 5 to 10' would not be considered a legal taking. So if this falls within legal framework we are in support and for the health of the stream and its ecosystem. In short, we support the initiative in full and advocate that the local landscape industry should too. It is likely some landscape companies are offenders of the pesticide regulations. In this regard it might take a fine structure to get any non-compliant groups to endorse and follow the ordinance. One of Tim’s ideas is that perhaps if caught violating the rules these groups should make up for the fine by planting some riparian areas. I hope this summary helps and that you succeed in your efforts on behalf of the Town, and the Gore May 17, 2022 - Page 350 of 549 Creek environment and its ecosystem. Very sincerely on behalf of the Zehren and Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning team and importantly as leadership partners in the Town’s Restore the Gore efforts. Pedro Campos, PLA Principal, Landscape Architect & Land Planner O: (970) 949-0257 | F: (970) 949-1080 From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:47 PM To: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolines@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Thanks Pedro and team! I would really appreciate feedback by the end of March if that seems feasible. I certainly understand it is a lot to review so I would be happy to talk through it with you if that would save you time in wrapping your head around the details. Pete From: Pedro Campos <pedroc@zehren.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:32 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <jesseg@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolines@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Pete, Thank you for reaching out and sharing. We will definitely review and provide comments. In addition to being a local business active in community and environmental planning and design Jesse, Tim, and myself are leadership partners in the Restore the Gore effort from our attendance of past workshops and seminars. It is both important and appropriate for us to weigh in. We will compile our thoughts and ideas into one response. Is there a particular date that would help you receiving our input? Let us know and thanks for taking these issues on! Regards, Pedro May 17, 2022 - Page 351 of 549 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council, We represent the Vail Townhouse Condominium Association (VTCA) as an elected Board of Directors. Our Association includes eleven units with Gore Creek frontage in the Village core at 303 Gore Creek Drive. The membership of VTCA have been watching with interest the proposed changes to the stream setbacks throughout the Town of Vail. Protecting Gore Creek is one of our most important goals. Creek frontage was one of the most important factors in our decisions to purchase at VTCA. We appreciate and commend the Town’s desire to further the protection of critical riparian zones along Gore Creek’s banks. The change of calculation methods is not altogether opposed by our Association; however, we would recommend a revision of the new setback amount from 25 feet to 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark. This small change would reduce the future impact on our Association as well as our neighbors as the proposed 25 foot setback will make our existing building nonconforming. We believe that this new setback of 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark still accomplishes the riparian zone protection that we and the Town seek, while preserving future development and expansion possibilities for our owners. We would appreciate the Commission’s and Council’s careful review of our request and welcome any further questions or discussion from the Commission or the Town Council. Respectfully, Dr. Richard Parker, President Vail Townhouse Condominium Association rparkermd@msn.com May 17, 2022 - Page 352 of 549 From:Heather Houston To:Peter Wadden Cc:"Dominic Mauriello"; Sharon Cohn Subject:Vail Stream Setback - Comparison of Methodologies Date:Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:50:56 PM Attachments:12_16_21 OHWM Methodology Comparison Map.pdf Good Afternoon Peter, I hope you are enjoying the holidays. Our team wanted to provide you with the attached graphic which compares the OHWM based on the two methodologies being discussed for determining the stream setback in Vail. The map shows the Field-Located Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as the 2-year inundation line. The area between these lines is highlighted in orange. As expected, these two lines do not match up well - this is because we do not think the 2-year flood is a good representation of the flow that creates the OHWM in the snowmelt-driven system in Vail. We have been advised it is likely closer to a 1.5-year inundation. As expected, where the banks are steep, there is not much of a lateral shift between the two lines. However, where the bank has a gradual slope or connected floodplain, there will be a much greater difference between the two lines. The hydraulic modeling method relies upon the accuracy of the inputs (topography and flow) to infer where the line might go (through hydraulic modeling calculations). In contrast we marked the line in the field - a direct measurement - and we don't believe this is an arbitrary method as was mentioned in our prior call. In fact, it is a repeatable method that is used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This method is less expensive for a landowner, repeatable, many ecologists are trained to identify it, and does not rely on having accurate topographic or flow data. All that is needed is a qualified professional to flag and then survey the line. In our opinion, the regulatory OHWM and stream setback should be defined by field indicators. You had requested our CAD files - I will pull together an Autocad drawing that includes our linework for the attached graphic and will send it your way. Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks, Heather HEATHER HOUSTON PRESIDENT & SENIOR ECOLOGIST May 17, 2022 - Page 353 of 549 BIRCH ECOLOGY, LLC HEATHER@BIRCHECOLOGY.COM https://link.edgepilot.com/s/adb77133/8EyZwVrZnkSpBhudZf_GoA? u=http://www.birchecology.com/ (720) 350-2530 (mobile) P.O. Box 170 429 Main Street Lyons, CO 80540 May 17, 2022 - Page 354 of 549 Hi Peter, That seems like a pretty mild request compared to what we do on forest. We typically apply 100’ stream protection buffers to Forest Service projects, based on our Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (attached). Melvin or Justin can speak better to that aspect, but I’ve attached a 2006 version of the handbook that I could find. I’m including Justin Anderson, our Forest hydrologist, as he may have a more recent and/or concise version and additional comments. Caveat: Since this is private land, I need to be careful in what I write or say, and realize that we do things very differently on forest than private largely because of the different size and scale, goals, economic drivers, etc. Bigger setbacks that are better able to represent riparian and stream corridors are incredibly important to wildlife. They provide ample water and plant availability for neotropical migratory birds, and the destruction of these areas has been considered the most important reason for bird species declines in the West. From this NRCS handout (about the Great Basin but applicable to Colorado as well): “A healthy riparian buffer protects the stream from influxes of pollution and sediment and protects upland areas by managing stream flow during floods. Plants are critical for stream stabilization and provide food and shelter for wildlife.” nrcs143_010098.pdf (usda.gov) In fact, 80 percent of wildlife species in the West depend on riparian areas for at least some point of their life cycle. Watch: Supporting Colorado’s River Restoration | Audubon Rockies If you need more information on the wildlife-side, let me know. I’ve provided at least some information regarding how important river and stream corridors are for wildlife. Devin may be able to speak to this more, but with hunting season he may be a bit out-of- pocket. Hope this helps, Jen Prusse Wildlife Biologist She/Her/Hers Forest Service White River National Forest, Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District p: 970-827-5160 jennifer.l.prusse@usda.gov 24747 US HWY 24 Minturn, CO 81645 www.fs.fed.us Caring for the land and serving people May 17, 2022 - Page 355 of 549 From:Crane, James To:Peter Wadden Subject:RE: A request for your input on proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek. Date:Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:15:52 AM Attachments:image002.jpg image003.jpg Sundial10footandOHWM.pdf Sundial25ohwmexisting.pdf StreamCorridorPresentation030221.pdf Good Morning Pete, Thanks for your email and March 18 phone call explaining how the proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek would impact Sundial’s streamside property. I shared our phone conversation and the attached information with our Sundial HOA board of directors and am pleased to report that the board is supportive of the proposed ordinance and its goals of restoring streambank habitat and environment. Thank you for sharing the proposed ordinance and inviting public comment. With Best Regards, James Crane, President Sundial HOA From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:36 AM To: Crane, James <cranej@wustl.edu> Subject: A request for your input Hi Jim- It was good speaking with you this morning. Thanks again for taking the time to present this proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to your fellow board members. They may be interested to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March 2 explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about 1:14:00 into the linked video. I have also attached a .pdf of the slides from that presentation if they want to just click through and read those. There are two maps attached. Each shows the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in blue. As I explained on the phone, our proposed ordinance would not impose any restrictions at this line. That line is just a basis for the 10 foot vegetative and 25 foot building setback I am proposing. You can see that 10 foot “no mow zone” in red on one of the maps. The other map shows our existing building setback (50 feet from Gore Creek centerline) in yellow and contrasts it with the new proposed building setback which would be 25 feet from OHWM in pink. I am happy to field questions or feedback from anyone you share this with. I am hoping to present this proposed code change to the Planning and Environmental Commission in late April or early May. May 17, 2022 - Page 356 of 549 October 21, 2021 TO: Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council RE: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members, The Climate Action Collaborative (the Collaborative) is writing to voice support for the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance brought forward by the Town of Vail (ToV). The Collaborative is focused on helping Eagle County become sustainable and resilient in the face of climate change. Sustainability is not just reducing carbon emissions, but also involves balancing ecology, human impact, and economics to prolong a thriving community. Maintaining the quality and quantity of the natural resources we are dependent on will help Eagle County stay resilient and adapt to future impacts. Water is a resource that is highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change, and one we must sustain, in all capacities of the word. Our community is heavily dependent on sufficient supply and healthy quality to support our surrounding ecosystems, our people (local and beyond), and our recreation and tourism economies. Increasing the vegetative buffer between development impact and a natural resource is critical to proper restoration of Gore Creek and its tributaries. The Collaborative calls for actions that support water quality and quantity in our 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP aligns its water-related strategies with those of the Eagle County Community Resilience Plan. It includes actions to support water resource improvements, such as restoration of riparian zones and support of “water planning efforts that consider potential population growth in regard to Eagle County’s water resource carrying capacity.” Because the ordinance would also apply to new developments, we believe it is in line with these actions. Additionally, we facilitated a Sustainable Building Code Task Force in early 2020 to recommend local codes that would support the achievement of CAP and other sustainability goals. One of those was a Sensitive Site Setback of buildings to preserve riparian zones and water quality, ensuring new developments and existing buildings minimize disturbances and promote biodiversity. We are committed to supporting efforts that preserve the sustainability of this resource, and consequently, resilience of the community. We thank you for your efforts in reviewing the ordinance, our letter of support, and for continuing your efforts in the Restore the Gore movement. Sincerely, Kimberly Schlaepfer Manager Climate Action Collaborative, Walking Mountains Science Center May 17, 2022 - Page 357 of 549 Climate Action Collaborative Community Partners Town of Avon Town of Basalt Eagle County Town of Minturn Town of Eagle Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail EagleVail Metro District Edwards Metro District Colorado Mountain College – Edwards Campus Eagle County School District Vail Mountain School ECO Transit Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Eagle Valley Land Trust Holy Cross Energy Mountain Recreation RA Nelson R&H Mechanical Traer Creek Metro District Vail Daily Vail Health Vail Honeywagon Vail Resorts Vail Valley Partnership The Community Market Mountain Youth Vail Valley Foundation Walking Mountains Science Center May 17, 2022 - Page 358 of 549 From:Christie Hochtl To:Peter Wadden; Ludik@comcast.net; Kevin Hochtl; Karl Höchtl Subject:Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 2:44:40 PM Good Afternoon PEC, Ludwig Kurz, and PeteWadden, Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Christie and Karl Hochtl 890 Red Sandstone Circle Vail, CO 81657 970 476 1125 landline 970 376 1893 cjbhochtl@gmail.com May 17, 2022 - Page 359 of 549 To Whom it May Concern As the co-owners of Mountain Organic/Pristine Landscaping, we support the new river corridor setbacks proposed by Pete Wadden and the Town of Vail. All of our clients on Booth Creek currently abide by the 25’ set back. Every client made the decision to follow the suggested guideline on their own accord as they all felt it necessary to do their part to help increase the health of Gore Creek. The increased natural footage with the 25’ set back has enhanced the overall look of our client’s landscaping along Gore Creek, not to mention helping benefit the health and viability of the creek and riparian habitat. Gore Creek is vital to many aspects in the Vail Valley including mammal environs, drinking water, fish habitat and more. By simply increasing native grasslands and planting a few shrubs, we as a collective can start bringing Gore Creek back into EPA standards. Our rivers can no longer support the enormous amounts of pollutants we willfully cast off into our local water systems. As businesses, home owners and government, to increase riparian zones along our much valued creeks and rivers shouldn’t be a big ask, it should be part of our moral obligation. Kelli and Kreston Rohrig May 17, 2022 - Page 360 of 549 From:Kaitlyn Merriman To:Peter Wadden Subject:In Support of the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 12:40:26 PM Hi Pete, I am writing to you to officially support the proposal for the stream corridor protection ordinance. Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Kaitlyn Merriman May 17, 2022 - Page 361 of 549 From:Dominic Mauriello To:Peter Wadden Cc:Tom Kassmel Subject:Re: A request for your input Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:23:35 PM Hi Peter: Thank you again for reaching out to me. I have taken a look at the impact of the proposed setbacks on the Evergreen Lodge, one of my clients. This property was addressed extensively in an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and was part of a land swap with Vail Health. A lot of work was put into a preliminary design to make sure that Vail health and Evergreen Lodge would each have their needs addressed on Lot F-1. For this analysis Evergreen relied upon the current stream setbacks and zoning setbacks. An increase in these setbacks will have a detrimental impact upon the Evergreen Lodge property. We did a quick study of the current setbacks versus the 25’ setback proposed (attached). One of the major consequences of the proposed setback is that, unlike the centerline setback, there are stream banks and eddies that can affect the impacts to private property. The Evergreen is one of these cases even when you drop the setback to 20’. 20’ certainly works a lot better except where there is a random stream bank especially related to Lot F-1 where literally the wide of the development on the project was planned down to the foot. It seems to me that you can still accomplish many of your goals by leaving the stream setbacks as they are measured today from the centerline but adding in the proposed 10’ natural riparian buffer. Even with the 10’ riparian buffer, you are going to need to provide some exceptions or maybe some performance standards or alternatives that allow for things like the community path that runs along Gore Creek to encroach. Maybe the regulation could be written that the setbacks are 30’ from the centerline of the stream but in no case shall there be a setback of less than 10’ from the OHWM. That way you are always guaranteed that the riparian zone can exist to help protect the creek. I am hoping we can come up with something that will work for the Town and the Evergreen Lodge. The Town's proposal is causing a significant amount of anxiousness based on the millions that were spent to work on the swap with Vail Health. Please let me know the schedule for reviewing this with the Town Council. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 May 17, 2022 - Page 362 of 549 Area 8 – NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 | F 970.947.2936 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair Honorable Dave Chapin October 21, 2021 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin, Town Council & Planning & Environmental Commission members, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is responsible for the management and conservation of wildlife resources within the state. Our statutory mission is implemented through our 2015 Strategic Plan, and the goals it embraces are designed to make CPW a national leader in wildlife management, conservation, and sustainable outdoor recreation to inspire current and future generations to serve as stewards of Colorado’s natural resources. In many ecoregions in the west, healthy riparian areas are a resource that is integral for overall water quality and ecosystem health. CPW understands that many of the riparian areas within and adjacent to the town limits of Vail have already been impacted by human development and presence, further emphasizing the need to protect, and restore the remaining corridors. Insulating the riparian zone from continued impacts will help many wildlife species that require these habitats. CPW supports the greatest possible setback in riparian areas, and is supportive of the Town of Vail’s (TOV) proposed no-mow-zone and updated setback requirements. Riparian zones typically comprise a small percentage of the landscape, often less than 1%, yet they frequently harbor a disproportionately high number of wildlife species and perform a disparate number of ecological functions when compared to most upland habitats. Almost all wildlife species that exist in Colorado require riparian habitat to survive. Riparian areas provide food, water, refuge from heat and cold, cover from predators, and breeding and rearing areas for a wide variety of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic species. Much of the native riparian habitat in the state has been altered or removed in some way, be it in the form of housing developments, trail system development, commercial uses, or even agricultural development. Studies have shown that riparian areas act as corridors, and many terrestrial species prefer to move through wider riparian corridors as opposed to more narrow and denuded riparian corridors (Hilty, et al, 2004). In addition, the tighter the corridor is in relation to the length by which it is restricted will deter wildlife use and act to further fragment an already heavily fragmented ecosystem (even a long, tight riparian corridor would act as a barrier to wildlife movement). Furthermore, a healthy riparian zone - the vegetated buffer between the aquatic and upland habitats - can serve to protect and improve water quality. Permanent vegetation functions to trap, and remove various pollutants, contaminants and sediments. Many wildlife species use riparian areas year round, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, birds, invertebrates, and fish. Other wildlife may only use the area seasonally May 17, 2022 - Page 363 of 549 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams  Robert W. Bray  Charles Garcia  Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser  John Howard  Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice-Chair  Luke B. Schafer  Eden Vardy  James Vigil, Secretary  Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair for a variety of reasons, including moving from summer/fall range to winter grounds, nesting/breeding/rearing young. Various raptor species have been known to use the area for wintering, roosting, and nesting. Furthermore, elk, moose, and deer usually calve and fawn in areas within 400 feet of free flowing water and on hillsides with dense vegetation in the spring, when snow typically precludes movement higher up onto the slope. Protection of any remaining intact riparian areas is essential, as we continue to see significant declines of deer and elk populations in the Gore and Eagle Valleys. Gore Creek is identified as a “Gold Medal” fishery, defined as “a lake or stream that supports a trout standing stock of at least 60 pounds per acre, and contains an average of at least 12 quality trout per acre. Additionally, anglers contribute significantly to the local Eagle County economy ($28.7 million, CPW 2012). Healthy riparian areas that are properly vegetated are a critical contributor to stream health. During low water years, it can shade the stream during hot summer months and provide cover for fish that are more exposed in shallower waters. Riparian areas also provide food input in the form of invertebrates and plant matter utilized by both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates as food. Impacts to our local fisheries during stressful summer months have recently been documented and are contributing to the local decline of certain species of sportfish. Reductions to the amount of protected riparian cover will only add to the impacts affecting the local fisheries, this could lead to reduced angling opportunity and experience essential to the local economy. The proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance will insulate the creek to continued impacts and provide for improved water quality, stream health and recreational opportunities, all essential to local communities. Vail is known for its beautiful, wild landscapes and diverse wildlife supported by the creek corridors that run through the heart of the town. Not only does the natural surroundings and wildlife draw many visitors to the area, it characterizes the high quality of life that entices people to live here, as well. Our natural resources, supported by protected and healthy riparian areas, are a significant economic driver to our local economy. CPW strongly encourages municipalities to do everything they can to be active stewards of our natural resources when developing their communities. Please consider approving the proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. CPW appreciates the opportunity to comment on this stream protection ordinance and looks forward to continued work with the town in conserving the natural resource. If you have any questions or concerns please contact District Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at 970-930-5264. Sincerely, Devin Duval District Wildlife Manager – Vail May 17, 2022 - Page 364 of 549 From:Matt Gennett To:Peter Wadden Subject:FW: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks Date:Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:34:41 PM FYI – (it is addressed to you but you don’t appear to be listed as a recipient) From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:28 PM To: Matt Mire <jmm@hpwclaw.com>; Kendra Carberry <klc@hpwclaw.com>; Greg Roy <GRoy@vailgov.com>; Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com>; Kristen Bertuglia <KBertuglia@vailgov.com>; Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com> Cc: Allison Kent <allison@mpgvail.com>; Sharon Cohn <sharon@solarisvail.com>; Heather Houston <heather@birchecology.com>; Matt Wadey <Wadey@alpinecivil.com>; Chad Cusworth <chad@solarisvail.com> Subject: Proposed Ordinance on Stream Setbacks Hello Peter and Town of Vail staff: We have completed a preliminary review of the ordinance that you sent over earlier today. I know you asked that I wait to review another version but we thought it was necessary to express some concerns about this version. Please share this email with the PEC and Town Council. This version goes well beyond the prior versions by heavily restricting what can occur in the new 25’ riparian zone. Previously what was proposed was a 25’ building setback with a 10’ riparian zone. In the prior version things like patios and walkways were allowed within the 25’ setback but not allowed in the 10’ zone. We are very concerned with this change and its impact on properties. We are still troubled with the definition of the Ordinary High Water Line. What you have proposed is not the ordinary high water mark or line but rather a two-year flood line. Those are not the same thing. It has taken us a couple of months to translate and plot the Town’s data in recognized survey system and what your data indicated to us are some very significant deviations between the hydraulic model and field conditions with some deviation as much as 9’ or more. We are concerned that the average landowner is going to find the data very difficult to represent on a plan. The Town’s data set should only be used for a high level indication of a setback line. We don’t believe that there needs to be a hearing with the Town Council to use actual field data especially if verified by the Army Corps. The two methods should be allowed. Section E is very confusing. First as stated above this section should be modified to reflect that either method is allowed for measurement. If there was a need to appeal a decision of staff related to the high water mark, that should be handled by the PEC just like any other appeal. This also allows there to be an appeal of the PEC decision to the Town Council. An appeal of the Town Council decision would mean going straight to court which seems unreasonable. The decision should be less political in nature and handled by the PEC. May 17, 2022 - Page 365 of 549 Additionally, still in Section E you either need to define wetlands scientist or use a more common provision such as a "qualified wetland consultant." This section is confusing as it is unclear if one needs to have both a wetland consultant prepare a report with a verification letter from the Army Corps OR have an engineer provide a hydraulic study or both. I think the intent is to have one or the other and not both. The Army Corps is not going to review and approve a hydrologic model as they use physical parameters from the field. Why is there a need to have the town hire a hydrologist if the Army Corps is verifying the ordinary high water line or mark? is this only necessary if a new hydraulic model is proposed? We also believe, based on the data being proposed by the Town, that the building setback should be 15’ to account the change in methodology being proposed. If using the Army Corps definition of ordinary high water mark, then 20’ may be the more appropriate setback. We previously provided comments related to invasive plant species and the need to need to allow for native landscaping for restoration of the 10’ riparian zone. We note that these comments were not included and we think they should be (reference letter from Birch Ecology). We believe that what is now proposed will have a significant impact on private property rights and impair my client's ability to redevelop the Evergreen property in a reasonable way. We think this ordinance still needs a lot of work and it is apparent that to-date our input is being largely ignored. We are happy to meet and discuss our initial comments further. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell https://link.edgepilot.com/s/d0a9d2ed/OAkUpKhAXEa7cPjjbYipGw? u=http://www.mpgvail.com/ May 17, 2022 - Page 366 of 549 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM October 18, 2021 Peter Wadden & The Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail , CO 81657 RE: Town of Vail Proposed Stream Setback Regulations Dear Peter and Commission Members, On behalf of the project team from the Evergreen Lodge, we have reviewed the Town of Vail's September 27, 2021 proposed revisions to the stream setback regulations, and have a few recommendations and suggestions: 1. Definition of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) The proposed regulations would define the OHWM "based on the average 2-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department." • For a snowmelt-driven system such as Gore Creek through the Town of Vail, it is our understanding that the 1.5-year flood line is more likely to represent the flow which corresponds to the Ordinary High Water Mark. • For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e) • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a well-established methodology for defining the Ordinary High Water Mark based on field conditions, as detailed in the attached Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. The guidance under Section 3(B) provides a "list of physical characteristics" that "should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:" May 17, 2022 - Page 367 of 549 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM o Natural line impressed on the bank o Shelving o Changes in the character of the soil o Presence of litter and debris o Wracking o Vegetation matted down, bent or absent o Sediment Sorting o Leaf litter disturbed or washed away o Scour o Deposition o Multiple observed flow events o Bed and banks o Water staining o Change in plant community • Given that there is already a well-established methodology based on the existing physical conditions, which is a direct measure of the OHWM in the field, we recommend the Town of Vail also adopt the Corps' definition and methodology for determining the Ordinary High Water Mark as a basis for establishing the stream setback. • The current methodology for establishing the setback based on the centerline of a stream or creek is to identify the OHWM on both sides, then establish a center between the two banks. This requires the OHWM to be mapped on both sides and the setback distance does not take into account the width of the stream, so a wide channel could end up with only a narrow buffer area. • We agree that the OHWM is a more appropriate baseline for establishing the stream setback vs. the centerline of the channel. It would only need to be located on one side in order to establish the setback and would account for variable channel widths. 2. Riparian Buffer and Stream Setback Distances The proposed stream setback rule would establish a 25-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and a 10-foot Riparian Zone along the inner edge, which would be a "protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials." Certain activities would be restricted within the Riparian Zone to promote the goals of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan - to improve the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. • In terms of functionality, the 10-foot Riparian Zone is the most valuable component of the 25-foot setback. This is where runoff will be filtered and it will be the most important part for wildlife habitat. May 17, 2022 - Page 368 of 549 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM • Building setbacks are helpful but a difference between 20 or 25 feet is not significant if they both have the same 10-foot wide Riparian Zone with a bluegrass lawn or parking lot for the remainder of the setback width. • One option which should be considered is to allow for a variable building setback if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased correspondingly. For example a building setback could be reduced by up to five feet (from 25 to 20 feet) if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased by up to five feet (from 10 to 15 feet). • This approach could allow some flexibility in setback widths to reduce the number of non- conforming properties. It would still be consistent with the goals to improve water quality and habitat because it would increase the width of the Riparian Zone - where the most important ecological functions would occur - by as much as 50%. 3. Additional Recommendations for the Riparian Zone • The draft language states that "no work, including but not limited to, mowing, landscaping, grading, or disturbance" ... shall be permitted "within the Riparian Zone" ... "with the following exceptions, subject to Design Review Board approval: (a.) Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds." • We recommend that this provision be expanded to include "Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds and other aggressive, introduced species." There are many examples of introduced plants which should be removed to maintain habitat quality but they are not specifically state-listed noxious weeds, so broadening this language would be consistent with the goal of protecting and improving riparian habitat quality by permitting removal of these plants. • We recommend adding "Native habitat restoration" as one of the exempted activities. • Consider adding language to the Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations which states "property owners will be encouraged to conduct native habitat restoration if the Riparian Zone on their property is dominated by non-native species or is in poor condition." • Consider adding language which states "residents will be encouraged to minimize foot paths and vegetation trampling within the Riparian Zone, and to locate creek access paths to avoid the most sensitive areas." This could be coupled with the provision to have a path of no more than 4 feet wide, with a permeable surface, to minimize impacts within the Riparian Zone. May 17, 2022 - Page 369 of 549 BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC · P.O. BOX 170 · 429 MAIN ST. · LYONS, CO 80540 · 720-350-2530 · WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM We would be happy to further discuss these recommendations and look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Heather Houston President & Senior Ecologist May 17, 2022 - Page 370 of 549 REGULATORY GUIDANCE LETTER No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification 1. Purpose and Applicability a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark. b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 2. General Considerations a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend landward ater of the OHWM. Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989 May 17, 2022 - Page 371 of 549 This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark” found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1) was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329, even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2 Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body. Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a case-by-case basis.4 b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition, districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM. 3. Guidance. a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1). Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography, channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. 2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist. 3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5. 4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM. 2 May 17, 2022 - Page 372 of 549 3 b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable: Natural line impressed on the bank Shelving Changes in the character of soil Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Presence of litter and debris Wracking Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent Sediment sorting Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Scour Deposition Multiple observed flow events Bed and banks Water staining Change in plant community This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless there is particularly strong evidence of one. c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5 Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to, lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges, is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM. e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM. f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by 5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM. May 17, 2022 - Page 373 of 549 Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and photographs documenting the OHWM. 4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded. 4 May 17, 2022 - Page 374 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 375 of 549 970.476.8865 CELAW.COM 93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657 January 21, 2022 Via E-mail Only Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Re. Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Commissioners: My firm represents Grand Hyatt Vail (“Grand Hyatt”) located in Cascade Village and on Gore Creek. Please accept this letter as the written comments of Grand Hyatt to the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance (“Ordinance”) that is being considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission (“PEC”) at its meeting on January 24th. As further explained below, Grand Hyatt has serious concerns and objections to the new 25-foot no-build setback currently proposed in the Ordinance. As you know, Grand Hyatt has extensive frontage along, and portions of its buildings and other improvements are located close to, Gore Creek. Gore Creek is basically Grand Hyatt’s front yard. It is important to note that Grand Hyatt, its predecessors and their owners and guests have always highly valued Gore Creek, including its environmental health, and understand that Gore Creek helps make the Town of Vail and Grand Hyatt unique, special and exceptionally beautiful. Towards that end, Grand Hyatt support the ten-foot no mow zone which is by far the most important element of the Ordinance. At least one environmental expert in reviewing the Ordinance has recognized that the ten- foot no mow zone is “the most valuable component” of the Ordinance and will do the most to improve the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. See Birch Ecology letter of October 18, 2021. Unlike the 10-foot no mow zone, the 25-foot no build set back is problematic, unnecessarily expansive, and unworkable. The proposed 25-foot setback in many places throughout the Town would materially expand the current setback and thus no build zone and cause many existing conforming structures to become non-conforming. This is true for the Grand Hyatt as the proposed 25-foot setback expands significantly further onto Grand Hyatt property and appears to actually touch and cross portions of the Grand Hyatt building. Attached is the Town’s rendering of the proposed setbacks with those locations on Grand Hyatt added. The Ordinance would thereby for the very first time effectively render non - conforming, and prohibit any modifications or expansions of, those portions of Grand Hyatt. It appears that would happen to a significant number of other buildings in Vail. The Grand Hyatt, which was originally constructed in the 1980’s, is currently pursing plans to renovate and modestly expand certain guest rooms and suites in those areas that would be effectively prohibited if the 25-foot setback is adopted. Daniel F. Wolf 93 South Frontage Rd W, Suite 222, Vail, CO 81657 970.476.8865| F: 970.476.0446 3107 Iris Ave, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80301-1915 303.443.8010 | F: 303.440.3967 dwolf@celaw.com www.celaw.com May 17, 2022 - Page 376 of 549 Planning and Environmental Commission January 21, 2022 P a g e | 2 We also have significant concerns that the Ordinance will be unworkable and unnecessarily create uncertainty and confusion going forward for property owners along Gore Creek like Grand Hyatt. Under the Ordinance as currently drafted it appears that Ordinary High Water Line (“OHWL”) and accordingly the setback will change periodically but the Ordinance does not specify when or how often that change will occur, and such change could occur as frequently as every few years. Also the definition of OHWL is unclear, confusing and based on an unidentified data set instead of the established and accepted definition used by the Army Corps of Engineers. These deficiencies will leave property owners along Gore Creek in perpetual limbo as to what they can or cannot do with their property near the 25-foot setback. We also believe the Ordinance as currently proposed may constitute a compensable regulatory taking of private property including of certain valuable Grand Hyatt property. In sum, we have seen no evidence that the proposed 25-foot setback will provide a meaningful improvement to the environmental health of Gore Creek over the current scheme, especially in view of the many problems associated with it. Grand Hyatt accordingly requests that the PEC not recommend adoption of the 25-foot set-back as proposed in the Ordinance and leave the current set-back in place. As mentioned, Grand Hyatt does not oppose the 10-foot now mow zone. Alternatively, Grand Hyatt requests that the PEC amend the Ordinance to address the concerns described above, including by moving the setback on Grand Hyatt property to no further than the existing setback or at a minimum establish the setback at 20 feet instead of 25 feet as has been proposed by several other stakeholders, and adopting a clearer and more established methodology for determining the OHWL. The Ordinance also should be amended to add a more comprehensive grandfathering provision to allow property owners who have commenced development plans, like Grand Hyatt, to proceed under the existing regulations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC Daniel F. Wolf DFW/cch cc. Grand Hyatt Vail 4876-5585-8442, v. 3 May 17, 2022 - Page 377 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 378 of 549 Proposed line touches the hotel May 17, 2022 - Page 379 of 549 From:Jonathan Spence To:Greg Roy; Peter Wadden; Shelley Bellm Subject:FW: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to today"s hearing on Stream Setbacks. Date:Monday, January 24, 2022 12:40:12 PM Attachments:image001.png Jonathan Spence, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479-2321 vailgov.com From: Jim Lamont <JFLamont@Vail.Net> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:39 PM To: Jonathan Spence <JSpence@vailgov.com> Subject: VHA/JFL/JS: Jonathan - Good morning. Please forward this onto the PEC with respect to today's hearing on Stream Setbacks. Planning and Environment Commission: Stream Setbacks. VHA, favors of remediation of streambanks for the purpose of restoring water quality to sustain aquatic habitat in Gore Creek and its tributaries. VHA does not favor the taking of property rights through inverse condemnation or other methods that would preclude property owners from restoring/replacing residential and other similarly related structures that currently exist within the proposed stream setback areas. Thank you. Jim Lamont/VHA May 17, 2022 - Page 380 of 549 January 31, 2022 Dear Planning and Environment Commissioners: These comments on the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance are submitted by the Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance (ESWA). ESWA is a local, all volunteer non-profit that works in coordination with the USFS to protect, preserve, and maintain the three Wilderness Areas in Eagle and Summit Counties, including the Eagles Nest Wilderness. ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance, but believes it should be strengthened not weakened. Although the Ordinance may not directly affect the Eagles Nest Wilderness, the riparian areas along Gore Creek are an important part of the overall ecosystem of the Vail Valley, including the tributaries of Gore Creek whose headwaters arise in and flow through the Eagles Nest Wilderness. Many species of wildlife travel between the Wilderness, Gore Creek, and its tributaries. Riparian areas are the pumping heart of ecosystems. They provide habitat, water , and food sources for animals for miles around, including those in the Eagles Nest Wilderness. These benefits are in addition to many others noted by your staff – water quality enhancement, flood protection, a healthy fishery, and aesthetic and recreational benefits. At the public hearing on January 24, 2022, some developers urged the Commission to weaken the provisions of the proposed Ordinance. ESWA urges the Commission to reject these proposals. For instance, the average flood on which the Ordinary High Water Mark is based should not be reduced from two years to 1.5 years. Riparian areas were developed by long-term flood patterns, and such flood patterns must be protected as much as possible if a healthy riparian area is to be maintained. Ideally, the average flood period would be as long as possible. If anything, the staff should consider the cost and benefits of an average five-year flood period. It certainly should not be reduced to 1.5 years. May 17, 2022 - Page 381 of 549 Likewise, the Riparian Zone should be increased from 10 feet to 25 or 50 feet. The scientific studies cited by the staff show that such wider riparian zones are much better than narrower ones. Many areas along Gore Creek and its tributaries do not currently have buildings within 25 or 50 feet of the OHWM. These areas should be protected rather than subjected to possible development. Structures already located within a wider Riparian Zone could be grandfathered. Existing riparian areas should be protected from, not doomed to, ultimate development. In short, ESWA supports the proposed Ordinance but urges the Commission to strengthen it rather than weaken it. This may be Vail’s last chance to protect the remaining riparian areas within its borders. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and for your service to our community. Respectfully, /s/ Mike Browning Chair of ESWA 4229A Nugget Lane Vail, CO. 81657 May 17, 2022 - Page 382 of 549 1 Gore Creek Preservation / Restoration January 24, 2022 1. We are homeowners with property fronting on Gore Creek at 4014 Bighorn Road in East Vail. Few, if any, have a greater interest than we and our neighboring homeowners in preserving and enhancing the natural health and biodiversity of Gore Creek. We received no official notification of these proceedings beyond articles in the Vail Daily and letters from the Vail Homeowners Association. 2. We have been good stewards of the natural health of our section of Gore Creek having twice personally financed the permitted restoration of the rocky stream bank washed away by the seasonal runoff, and the planting of numerous Aspen trees and other native vegetation with root systems to support the stream bank. 3. Having worked with the United States Forest Service as a volunteer on a project to assess the extent of cementation of the Gore Creek streambed by deposits of traction sand from I-70, I can say with great confidence that the overwhelming threat to the health and welfare of the aquatic life in Gore Creek is traction sand and magnesium chloride. That threat is magnified by the deposits of same on the various bridges crossing Gore Creek from Bridge Road and East from there. A major degradation of Gore Creek was accomplished by the Town of Vail during the reconstruction of the bridge at Bridge Road and the installation of a new kayak launching and wading / picnicking platform. The proposed property use restrictions will have no impact on reducing or eliminating these major threats while interfering with the homeowners’ peaceful enjoyment of the use of their properties. The proposed property use restrictions now under consideration constitute a “taking” of private property and a substantial diminution of the values of the restricted properties. 4. We are offended by the standard practice of the Town of Vail in exempting itself from the environmental rules and regulations it imposes on private property owners. Joe McHugh Brenda McHugh 4014 Bighorn Road May 17, 2022 - Page 383 of 549 January 23, 2022 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 82657 Re: Proposed Changes to Stream Setbacks Dear PEC: I am writing you on behalf of the ownership of the Evergreen Lodge, one of the many properties in the Town of Vail that will be affected by the proposed ordinance that drastically changes the way the setbacks are determined and the uses allowed within proposed setback. The changes are a significant departure from the current stream setback regulations that have been in effect for nearly a half a century in Vail. The goals being sought by the Town staff are lofty and admirable. Everyone wants healthy rivers, riparian areas, and with high water quality for all of the reasons that have been documented. My client, and many others that we talk to and you have heard from, take no issue with the desire to create the 10’ native (“no mow zone”) from the bank of the creek. There are huge benefits in creating this zone. The remainder of the ordinance is problematic for several reasons which I will describe below: •Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL). The Town’s proposed ordinance is not really resolving the measurement of of the creeks from the center line to the bank or what the Army Corps of Engineers would define as the Ordinary High Water “Mark.” Instead the town is proposing to adopt a set of maps that establishes a new floodplain which the staff is referring to as the OHWL. In many cases that we have reviewed and in the case of Middle Creek, adjacent to the Evergreen Lodge, the floodplain line being established by the Town can be significantly upland from what the Army Corps of Engineers would map as the OHWM. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the town’s new line can be off by as much as 9’. We think the Town should understand the impacts of this on properties throughout the Town before passing this ordinance. We believe the Town should stick with the methodology that has been adopted by the Army Corps for decades and which has been largely used by surveyors in the region for decades. Below is the definition used by the Army Corps and I have attached their field manual. •For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary High Water Mark as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 33 CFR 328.3(e) 1 PO Box 4777 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970.376.3318 www.mpgvail.com May 17, 2022 - Page 384 of 549 •25 foot setback. The staff is recommending a 25 foot setback from its new floodplain line the OHWL. The setback from the actual stream bank or OHWM could in fact end up being more like 35 feet or more depending on the property in question when you factor in the discrepancy between the OHWL and the OHWM. In the case of Middle Creek, under stream setbacks in the code today, the setbacks create a 60 feet wide corridor of this narrow stream. If you increased that to measuring from the stream bank of the OHWM, you create a corridor that is about 70 feet wide if the average width is about 20 feet wide or 60 feet if the stream is about 10’ wide. If you use the Town’s floodplain line, that corridor in the case of Middle Creek ends up being about 76 feet which now impacts private property in a significant way. The change will cause many more portions of property to be nonconforming which will affect a properties ability to redevelopment to make building additions. We believe the more reasonable approach would be to change the setback to 20 feet and use the Army Corps well established OHWM. If the Town is hell bent on using its new floodplain model, then the setback should like be reduced to 15 feet to account for discrepancies. •Uses within the 20 foot setback. Under the regulations today, the stream setback is treated like any other building setback in the code in terms of the use of the area within the setback. We agree with the restrictions being put in place for the first 10 feet of the riparian zone from the OHWM. Today, there are many uses that one can place within the stream setback as well as a building setback. The Town’s proposal accounts for encroachments of patios, decks, and balconies, but is does not account for other uses typically found in setbacks such as swimming pools, hot tubs, sidewalks, retaining walls, walls and fences, and even parking, all of which are allowed today. Here again, the proposed regulation, will result in many more nonconformities on private property. We believe these uses should be included as they are allowed today. •Grandfather provision. The ordinance does not provide any relief to property owners who are in the process of developing plans for redevelopment and who have been relying on the Town’s current regulation. Even today there is not clear direction about the outcome of the Town’s efforts which puts the planning for redevelopment at huge risk. In the case of the Evergreen Lodge, the applicant has been working towards a project for the last 5 years (master plan amendments, land swaps with Vail Health, etc.). In the last year the Evergreen Lodge ownership has spent over $1 million to develop plans that will result in a submittal to the Town within a month. There needs to be a provision added to the ordinance that gives property owners in this situation the ability to submit and be revised under the current regulations. We have proposed language in the attached redline document to address this concern. What is proposed is not a new concept and has been implemented in other jurisdictions related to local land use regulation. In the spirit of trying to strike a happy medium with what staff has proposed, we have proposed some redline changes to the ordinance that we believe will address our concerns (attached). We are concerned about having any requirement that forces the Army Corps to approve a OHWM on the front end knowing that it can take many months to gain such approval. We have proposed language in the regard. Thank you for taking our comments into consideration. While our comments are definitely related to our specific situation, we believe these proposed changes to the ordinance will help many throughout the Town to reduce unnecessary impacts of the proposed regulations. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Principal 2 May 17, 2022 - Page 385 of 549 1 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO ESTABLISH SETBACKS FROM GORE CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WHEREAS, the Town's current stream setback, as established by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from the center of an established creek or stream channel and 50 from the centerline of Gore Creek; WHEREAS, the Gore Creek Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council in 2016 identifies loss of riparian vegetation as one of the main causes of declining water quality in Gore Creek; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to prevent further deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries by enacting a clear, comprehensible, and enforceable set of guidelines for setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-14-17 of the Vail Town Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following new definitions, to appear in alphabetical order: ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINETWO YEAR FLOOD LINE ("OHWLTYFL"): The average two-year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries, as established by the data set adopted by the Town Council by resolution. Section 3. Chapter 21 of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 12-21-17, to read as follows: 12-21-17: GORE CREEK SETBACKS: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the resiliency of Gore Creek and its named tributaries and by mitigating hazards associated with the deterioration of Gore Creek and its named tributaries. B. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all property located within twenty-five (2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, in whole or in part; provided that this Section shall not apply to any stream tract already protected by Chapter 14 of Title 5 of this Code. May 17, 2022 - Page 386 of 549 2 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX C. Setbacks: 1. No mowing, landscaping, grading or other disturbance shall be permitted within ten (10) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than: a. Removal of noxious weeds pursuant to Section 5-1-6 of this Code; b. With prior approval of the Vail Fire Department, removal of vegetation for purposes of fire mitigation; c.. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, the installation and maintenance of one access path per lot or parcel, of up to four (4) feet in width, consisting of permeable materials including without limitation native soils, sand and gravel, or flagstone set in a permeable base; d. Public roadways, bridges, recreational paths and trails and public parks and open spaces; e. Utility infrastructure within utility easements; f. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, erosion control measures and stream grade-control structures that conform with bank stabilization best management practices; and g. Buildings, structures, fences, walls, patios, walkways, landscaping features, furniture or and similar improvements lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (2520) feet of the OHWLTYFL, other than: a. With prior approval of the Design Review Board, architectural projections, decks, balconies, steps and bay windows described in Section 14-10-4 of this Code along with other site improvements including sidewalks, hot tubs, swimming pools, retaining walls, utilities, stormwater facilities, and fences; b. Buildings and structures lawfully existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section, which improvements shall be subject to Chapter 18 of this Title. D. Correction RequestsAlternative Delineation: When Aa property owner may choose to use the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), as defined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), versus the TYFL as defined herein. A property owner wishing to use the OHWM May 17, 2022 - Page 387 of 549 3 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX may submit an application to the Community Development Department for approval of the OHWM. The application shall include a statement from a qualified consultant indicating that the OHWM was determined based on the guidance and standards established by the Army Corps and a survey stamped by a professional land surveyor indicating the OHWM. Staff may require a letter of approval from the Army Corps of the OHWM when it is unclear from the data submitted if the OHWM is correct. Noting the potential for administrative delays caused by the Army Corps, such letter of approval from the Army Corps may be provided prior to obtaining a building permit and a development application shall be processed without the Army Corps letter of approval. If it is determined by the Community Development Department the application is complete and accurate, it shall issue an approval of the OHWM and the OHWM shall be substituted for the TYFL for the purpose of these regulations. wishes to correct the location of a designated OHWL affecting such property owner's property, the following procedures shall apply: 1. The applicant shall file a written application with the Department of Community Development, requesting a hearing before the May 17, 2022 - Page 388 of 549 4 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX Planning and Environmental Commission. The application shall include the property owner's delineation of the Ordinary High Water Mark ("OHWM"), which delineation shall comply with standards adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The application shall also include a letter from Army Corps of Engineers attesting that the OHWM delineation has been verified. 2. The Planning Commission shall consider the application at a public hearing within thirty (30) days after the Town deems the application complete. 3. At the hearing, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and testimony in support of the application. It shall be the applicant's burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the property owner's delineation of the OHWM should be used to change the location of the OHWL. 4. Following the hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall either order that the OHWL be relocated or order that the OHWL remain in its existing location. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be subject to appeal as provided in Section 12-3-3 of this Code. E.D. Violation and Penalty: 1. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Section. 2. It is unlawful for any person to re-channel or modify Gore Creek or any of its named tributaries so as to avoid application of this Section. 3. Each separate act in violation of this Section and each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of this Section is committed, continued or permitted shall be deemed a separate offense. 4. Violations of this Section shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 4 of Title 1 of this Code. E. Appeals. Provisions of this Section are subject to to appeal as provided in Section 12-3-3 of this Code. 4.F. Grandfather Provision. This Section shall not apply to any property where the property owner has in good faith spent substantial time and money in the preparation of development plans to develop its property and where the imposition of requirements of this Section conflict with the regulations in effect May 17, 2022 - Page 389 of 549 5 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX at the time of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and adversely affect the development of the owners property. In such a case, the property owner that can show substantial and ongoing expense in the preparation of development plans prior to the adoption of this Section, the property owner shall be afforded one hundred and twenty days (120) days the submit a development application and be accepted by the Town of Vail for review from the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and such property and development application shall be reviewed under the regulations existing prior to the adoption of this Section. For the purpose of this Section, “substantial and ongoing expense” shall mean expenses that have been occurring for over four (4) months or more in the preparation and planning for an actual development application to be submitted to the Town and not expenses occurred after the adoption of this Section. Any subsequent related development applications that normally occur after the initial development application shall likewise be exempt from this Section (such as a Design Review application or a subdivision application, that follows the approval of a Planning and Environmental Application). Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. May 17, 2022 - Page 390 of 549 6 1/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\GORE CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS\RESTORE THE GORE! PW\CODE CHANGES\NOMOWZONE\STREAM SETBACK CODE CHANGES\STREAM SETBACK-O011422.DOCX Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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 , 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of , 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 2022. Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 391 of 549 REGULATORY GUIDANCE LETTER No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification 1. Purpose and Applicability a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark. b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non-tidal waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 2. General Considerations a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter-agency agreement,1 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case-by case basis, the extent of geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal w bodies extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend landward ater of the OHWM. Corps regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: “The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” 1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989 May 17, 2022 - Page 392 of 549 This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term “ordinary high water mark” found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over non-tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1) was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi-colons of the former definition were mistakenly changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of “ordinary high water mark” in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329, even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2 Both definitions of the term “ordinary high water mark” begin by discussing physical characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body. Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be determined using “other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”.3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a case-by-case basis.4 b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition, districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM. 3. Guidance. a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non-tidal water bodies under the CWA or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1). Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography, channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. 2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist. 3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5. 4 . On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers’ Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM. 2 May 17, 2022 - Page 393 of 549 3 b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable: Natural line impressed on the bank Shelving Changes in the character of soil Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Presence of litter and debris Wracking Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent Sediment sorting Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Scour Deposition Multiple observed flow events Bed and banks Water staining Change in plant community This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of water body and conditions of the area. There are no “required” physical characteristics that must be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless there is particularly strong evidence of one. c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5 Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to, lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges, is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200-year flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM. e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts’ written documentation will include information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM. f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by 5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM. May 17, 2022 - Page 394 of 549 Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and photographs documenting the OHWM. 4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded. 4 May 17, 2022 - Page 395 of 549 Wayne F. Forman Shareholder 303.223.1120 tel WForman@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 February 3, 2022 VIA EMAIL: commdev@vailgov.com Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: One Willow Bridge Road Homeowners Association: Comments to Proposed Change to Waterbody Setbacks, PEC21-0043 Dear Commissioners: I am writing once again on behalf of One Willow Bridge Road HOA in connection with the proposal pending before you to increase setbacks from Gore Creek, this time to provide our comments on the proposal. We appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration of the comments you have received thus far and request you take these additional comments into account in your deliberations over increasing the setbacks from Gore Creek. 1. Clarify Setback to Exclude Man-Made Drainage Discharge. The mapping of the 25-foot setback within the One Willow Bridge Road property (attached) shows an extensive encroachment of the proposed setback on the southeastern portion of the building. We believe that this reflects not a setback from Gore Creek, but from a side discharge of water entering Gore Creek at that location. That discharge, however, is not part of any natural tributary or water feature. Rather, it comes from a pipe that discharges seepage water from the parking garage of the Solaris condominium building. In speaking with Pete Wadden, he advised that an on-the-ground survey of the elevations of the new modelled setback line through the site would likely ignore this drain pipe discharge, but that if this discharge were included within the modelled setback, the fact that it was coming from a parking garage, as opposed to a natural tributary, would likely be strong grounds to have the setback corrected to ignore this man-made discharge in an appeal proceeding. We appreciate Pete’s advice on this issue and it appears sound. Nevertheless, we request that the Town include in the proposed ordinance an acknowledgement that the enlarged setbacks apply May 17, 2022 - Page 396 of 549 Town of Vail PEC February 3, 2022 Page 2 only to Gore Creek and its natural tributaries or other natural water features and not to artificial discharges of drainage or seepage water from buildings or structures. This clarification, which seems consistent with the intent of the proposal, would provide us with additional comfort that this anomalous setback would be corrected if an appeal of the setback line through the One Willow Bridge site became necessary. 2. Extend Reconstruction Period For Nonconforming Structures. As the Commission is aware, the proposed 25-foot setback from the OWHL will convert a significant number of fully-compliant buildings in the Vail Central Core to “nonconforming” status under the Town Code, including One Willow Bridge Road. Town Code §12-18-9 provides that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed by fire or other calamity, the structure may be restored, “provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion.” We understand that the phrase “restoration is commenced within one year” has been interpreted by the Town to mean that the building owner must have submitted a building permit to restore a structure within the one-year timeframe. Even with that interpretation, a one-year time period is too short, given all that an owner must go through to get its site ready for reconstruction, including dealing with insurance companies, clearing debris, surveying the site, and having construction plans prepared, to name a few. We suggest that, in light of the large number of nonconforming structures that will result from the enlargement of the Gore Creek setbacks, the Town make a commensurate amendment to §12-18-9 to extend to two years the time within which reconstruction of a nonconforming structure must be commenced and to memorialize in the Code that commencement of reconstruction means the filing of a building permit with the Town. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Wayne F. Forman Cc: Oliver Nunnenmacher, Manager, One Willow Bridge Road HOA (oliver@onewillowbridgeroad.com) Stephen A. Best, Esq., President, One Willow Bridge Road HOA (SBest@brownrudnick.com) Greg Roy, Senior Planner, Town of Vail (groy@vailgov.com) Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> 23706732.1 May 17, 2022 - Page 397 of 549 MEMO TO: TOWN OF VAIL - PEC COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2022 RE: AGENDA 3.1 SECTION 12-14-17 WATERCOURSE SETBACK CHANGES (PEC21-0043) FROM: RICHARD K. PARKER, MD PRESIDENT VAIL TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOCIATION 303 EAST GORE CREEK DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO Dear Commissioners; I am sending you my written comments on the proposed changes to the above noted regulations regarding the Waterbody Setback. We understand and support the concepts and wishes for reclamation of water quality and streamflow stabilization, as we were the first condominiums developed in Vail in 1963-64. Out of our 10 units, we have 6 of the 10 still owned by the original families and I have been an owner and resident since 1975. We have spent the past 50 years planting trees and shrubs, stabilizing the Mill Creek and Gore Creek banks and creating a environmental riparian area that you are now wanting to prescribe everywhere. However, in your quest to do so, I must point out several areas that will provide unintended consequences that create hardships that you may not have recognized. To help you understand our exact location, we are in the center of the core village just east of the Clock Tower and Gorsuch buildings, just east of Mill Creek and on the south side of Gore Creek. We occupy building lots 1 thru 6 at this site and constitute the west half of the Town House group. My concerns are: 1. With the proposed changes of widening the setback, it places the north west corner of the building in the area as drawn into the NON-CONFORMING category. As we are a Condo Association with the building held in common, that places the entire building of all 10 units into the Non-Conforming status for any project that requires a building permit. This would require any minor or major remodel or rebuild to request a variance for any project large or small. This adds the associated increase in cost, time and uncertainty in review. Over the past 2 1/2 years we have expended over $20,000 with consultants and lawyers as well as our time working with the Zoning/Community Development Departments to re-zone and bring us into a Conforming Status. We had a very positive experience working with the Town of Vail Departments to move us into a Compliant Status and with their encouragement to do so May 17, 2022 - Page 398 of 549 to simplify their required future permitting processes as well. The goal was to get us into Compliance so that any remodel would not require a variance. As we did this it good faith and effort, it is therefore very disheartening for another part of the Town of Vail government moving forward to place us back into the Non-Conforming Status. The Town had created a new zoning category for the core Town House community (of which we were included) to promote improvement and redevelopment in this area and to move all related properties a into Conforming Status. 2. As we are by topography well above the high water mark of a flood status except a small corner of the original building, this problem with the wide set back is entirely for water quality that results in placing us in this predicament. Our building sets up on the elevated bank with the south side of Gore Creek and the west side of Mill Creek creating a low water flood plane. It is also rather frustrating to see that the city still is allowed to mow and utilize the park lands along Mill Creek to the south and Gore Creek to the east and west of us with no restrictions, but the arbitrary restrictions in the core village placed without concern for the effect on the property owners nor consideration of the topography. 3. There is also no mention of probably the greatest problem in the core affecting the quality of the stream water and the fish habitat. That is the human effect on the stream use. Are you going to discuss and propose any regulation on human use and action in the waterways? 4. With the proposed changes we have small patios on the stream side of the building that have been present since 1964 that are in the proposed restricted areas. Around these we have kept and restricted any type of solid or hardscape surfaces and kept a small lawn. As the proposal is described this will place these areas as ‘no mow’ or ‘weed areas’ and that at the time of any remodel, it is entirely possible for future building department reviews to require that these patios and access doors could have to be abandoned or the building be reconstructed with commercial codes as they are in the Non-Conforming area. What you described now in good faith and effort may and often times is interpreted differently in the years to come by other departments. All of these decisions and recommended policy changes will go forward, but I request a thorough consideration of the downstream effects of such policies. You are making recommendations partially on stream flow for flood mitigation and other recommendations based for the reclamation and re-establishment of improved water quality. I would suggest that you consider making a separate setback policy for the core village even though I have heard loud and clear that some of your commission members do not wish to consider separate policies for urban or core areas vs the suburban (East and West Vail) areas. The wider setbacks as proposed will have little or no effect on the up and down stream (suburban) areas, but certainly will place a number of structures in the core areas into the Non-Conforming or Non- Compliant category. I request that you look with your staff at what would the changes be if the set backs were at the 20 foot or 25 foot mark in the core areas before coming up with your final recommendations. I also must point out that I and my fellow home owners in the Vail Townhouses as well as many of us in the Core Village represent a disenfranchised group. Most members of the government, elected May 17, 2022 - Page 399 of 549 officials, commissions, panels and employees of this Town live up and down valley yet those of us in the village core tend to be non-full time residents. As a result we can not vote, are never asked to, nor allowed to serve on commissions or panels for the town but pay our taxes year after year quietly. We appreciate your time and service for the city, but we also ask for your consideration on what are the unintended consequences of your recommendations on proposed policies. Please do not force an easy to apply solution for suburban areas that creates a costly and extremely difficult if not impossible problem on the core village. Simplicity may seem to be a warm and fuzzy answer but please consider the total impact. Thank you for your consideration and deliberations that we do appreciate. Our goals are the same but we do raise questions on how do we get there? Are there any questions about the concerns that I have raised? Richard K. Parker, MD Vail Townhouse Condo Association 303-775-8136 <rparkermd@msn.com> May 17, 2022 - Page 400 of 549 3/22/2022 Hi Peter and Greg: I’d like to suggest another change to the proposed stream setback ordinance. At the PEC hearing on March 14, there was discussion related to one of my prior comments related to provision C2a. I had suggested that this provision was too narrow and did not allow for other improvements like retaining walls and sidewalks. Greg pointed out that those other improvements were in fact allowed by other sections of Title 14, Chapter 10 and would be allowed in the future with this proposed ordinance. C2a states in part: 2. No building or structure shall be located within twenty-five (25) feet of the TYFL, other than: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Section 14-10-4 of this Code; Noting that there are other provisions within Title 14 Chapter 10 that would allow additional improvements within the building setback proposed, I would suggest that provision “a” be changed to: a. With approval of the Design Review Board, those items listed in Chapter 14-10 of this Code; I believe this will more accurately reflect the intent as stated by staff at the PEC hearing and reduce confusion in the future. Thank you for your help and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process of developing the proposed ordinance. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com May 17, 2022 - Page 401 of 549 April 4, 2022 Dear Mayor and Town Council members: I am writing on behalf of my client, the owners of the Evergreen Lodge. We would like to express our support for the proposed Stream Setback Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Environmental Commission (PEC). The PEC held six hearings over six months on the proposed regulations receiving hours of testimony and input from many members of the public and qualified experts to arrive at its recommendation to the Town Council. We appreciate the hard work of the PEC who managed to balance all of the factors affecting the proposed regulations including private property rights and protecting the environment and the community’s precious water resources. We are happy with the outcome of the PEC hearing process and while we still have some minor concerns, we are fully supportive of the PEC’s recommended ordinance. We see that the staff is proposing to depart from the recommendation of the PEC related to the corrections process. The methodology and the corrections process were discussed at nearly every hearing with the PEC and was one of the critical elements allowing the PEC to feel comfortable to pass along an unanimous approval. We hope that the Town Council will agree with the PEC and not back track on one of the critical elements agreed to by the PEC. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com May 17, 2022 - Page 402 of 549 Katherine J. Duncan Attorney at Law 303.223.1230 direct kduncan@bhfs.com www.bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 303.223.1100 main 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 May 2, 2022 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor Langmaid and Council Members: I write on behalf of One Willow Bridge Road HOA to provide comments on Ordinance No. 6 concerning setbacks from Gore Creek and its tributaries. We appreciate the significant efforts of staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission (“PEC”) to craft setback amendments that protect the environment and water quality of Gore Creek and its tributaries. Because the One Willow Bridge Road condominium building will be impacted by Ordinance No. 6 ordinance, One Willow Bridge Road HOA requests that the Town Council address two significant concerns in its consideration of Ordinance No. 6 at the second reading. 1. Extend the reconstruction period for nonconforming structures. The proposed 25-foot setback based on the two-year flood line will convert a number of fully- compliant buildings in the Vail Central Core to “nonconforming” status under the Town Code. This includes One Willow Bridge Road. Section 12-18-9 of the Town Code allows a nonconforming structure destroyed by fire or other calamity to be restored “provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion.” The phrase “commenced within one year” has been interpreted by the Town to mean that a building owner must submit a building permit to restore a structure within the one - year timeframe. At the April 5, 2022 Town Council meeting, the PEC representative confirmed that the one-year standard is “lenient” and will apply as long as the owner is working toward rebuilding. Even with that interpretation, a one-year time period is too short given what a building owner must do to prepare for reconstruction, including, among other things, handling insurance companies, clearing debris, surveying the site, and preparing a construction plan. In addition, that interpretation is not set forth within the Town Code and therefore subjects property owners to uncertainty about whether their actions are sufficient. May 17, 2022 - Page 403 of 549 Vail Town Council May 2, 2022 Page 2 In light of the large number of nonconforming structures that will result from the enlargement of the Gore Creek setbacks and the harsh consequences resulting from a property owner being unable to commence restoration within one year, we ask the Town to amend Ordinance No. 6 as follows: • Amend § 12-18-9 to include a two-year timeline within which reconstruction of a nonconforming structure commence, and • Memorialize in the code that commencement of reconstruction means filing a building permit with the Town. 2. Use the corrections process recommended by the PEC. At the conclusion of the PEC’s public process—which involved extensive expert and community input—the PEC recommended using the Two-Year Flood Line (“TYFL”) to establish setbacks and the Ordinary High Water Mark (“OHWM”) for the corrections process. The PEC took into account testimony and correspondence by experts in hydrology and stream science and public feedback to arrive at a position that allowed the Town to use a new methodology to establish enhanced setbacks (i.e., the TYFL), while also recognizing that the failure of the TYFL to reflect the actual stream channel through particular properties could be remedied through the corrections process using a different methodology that reflects on-the-ground conditions (the OHWM). The combination of the initial and corrections methodologies allowed the PEC to reach consensus and pass its recommendation with unanimous approval. Despite the PEC’s recommendation, staff instead proposed a corrections process that relies on the TYFL. We urge the Town Council to amend Ordinance No. 6 and require use of the OHWM corrections process. The TYFL requires a set of modeled assumptions for estimating the location of the streambank. As the public commenters discussed at the April 19 meeting, the quality of the data inputs matter and, at best, the TYFL is an estimation of where the OHWM may be. In contrast, it is important that a corrections process can account for dynamic landforms through direct field measurements of physical characteristics. Using the OHWM for corrections is sensible and achieves that goal. For these reasons, One Willow Bridge Road HOA encourages the Town to reject Ordinance No. 6 as currently drafted with the staff proposal and instead adopt a version of the ordinance which uses the PEC’s recommended corrections process. Alternatively, we ask that the Town to amend Ordinance No. 6 to include a corrections process that allows a property owner to use either the TYFL or the OHWM. Thank you for your time and consideration of the foregoing requests. I will be available during the next Town Council meeting on Ordinance No. 6 for further comment and to answer any questions. May 17, 2022 - Page 404 of 549 Vail Town Council May 2, 2022 Page 3 Sincerely, Katherine J. Duncan cc: Oliver Nunnenmacher, Manager, One Willow Bridge Road HOA Stephen A. Best, Esq., President, One Willow Bridge Road HOA May 17, 2022 - Page 405 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N September 27, 2021, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g 1.2.Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert Absent: None 2.Main Agenda 2.1.A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4: A rchitectural P rojections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, B ay W indows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of S ection 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a balcony roof and associated support to encroach into the required setback, located at 2705 Davos Trail, L ot 14, Block B , Vail Ridge S ubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0041) 20 min. Applicant:Robbie Baxter & Gibson Watson, represented by V MD A Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Planner Spence gives an introduction to the application. He goes over the extent of the variance request for the setbacks. The applicant is requesting that a roof extend past the allowed 4-foot encroachment. Chris J ergens of V MD A, representing the applicant, goes over their request. He lists the criteria for approval of a variance required by Town Code and how this application meets them. Kjesbo asks what the original setbacks were when the house was built in Eagle County. Spence guesses 20’ on all sides. Pratt asks if similar variances have been granted. Spence does not recall any similar variances being granted. Phillips believes that the house was built as close to the setbacks as possible. May 17, 2022 - Page 406 of 549 J ergens believes they did so because of the topography. Perez says the slope does not have a rational connection to a deck covering. The request for a variance over a nonconforming deck is a special treatment. Gillette asks about the nonconformity. Spence responds the deck is too close to the property line. Perez does not believe a partially covered deck is a hardship. P E C must follow criteria strictly and this does not meet the criteria. J ergens believes they are meeting it. Public comment is opened. No public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to deny. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2.A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for the adoption of the West Vail Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0036) 90 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by S E Group Planner:Matt Gennett Community Development Director, Matt Gennett, goes over the request from the P E C at the end of the previous meeting. He goes over the conditions of approval suggested by staff as a result of the P E C’s discussion at the last meeting that were included in the packet. Ellie Wachtel adds that Fehr and Peers is online if there are any transportation related questions. Kurz appreciates staff’s efforts and thanks them for the hard work being put in. Gillette asks if Gennett sees this going to Council and being kicked back to P E C to solve these conditions. Gennett responds that no, he believes that at the Council meeting Council would direct staff to make these revisions and the Council’s revisions if any, and then come back to Town Council with those amendments for final adoption. Gillette would like to see more description in the items about the deed restrictions and zoning discussion. The written description is a little confusing based on the discussion. “There can be no increase in density without some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu”. 100% does not need to be deed restricted, but any increase needs to result in some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu. Gennett says that in the rezoning process the language will be done in a public process at that time. Gillette wants to ensure that as properties redevelop, they need to have some May 17, 2022 - Page 407 of 549 housing aspect to it. The clarity needs to be added in the condition’s language. Phillips asks for clarity. Are we going to allow the same number of units that exist over density today or exist over zoning today? W hich one will trigger the housing requirement? Gillette believes an increase in density above what is allowed today would require the housing component. Phillips says that if someone is tearing down a six-plex then anything over those two allowed units would require some kind of housing? Gillette says, some percentage over that number two, yes. We aren’t imposing any hardship for owners; they had the responsibility to know the zoning and that they were overbuilt. Wachtel adds that an extra E HU unit could be built, but we haven’t seen that happening. Gillette recognizes that and a percentage needs to go towards housing. The parking lots on Chamonix are emptier these days and we’re already losing housing. Pratt has a comment on eliminating GRFA. I f you build to setbacks and height with no GRFA you get boxes. That does not match the character of the neighborhood. W e should look at what Lionshead did and give a 250% increase of GRFA, but eliminating it just gets boxes. Gennett asks whether the existing or proposed dimensional zoning standards would be sufficient or not to control the size of structures. Pratt agrees and says some increase, but not a complete removal. Gillette thinks we should eliminate the Geneva exemption. This area should be treated the same as the other areas in West Vail. Gennett asks about and Gillette confirms the affected conditions he is referring to. Gillette has concerns that the dashed lines were not quite right on the corner of Chamonix and Arosa. The line as drawn needs to be pulled back in to not include lots that front on other roads. Phillips says that is reflected on page 71. Specifics over the corner of Circle Drive and the map are discussed. Gillette thinks Circle Drive is fine with the Primary/Secondary zoning and needs to be left out. Wachtel asks if there are other streets that have a similar issue. Gillette says Circle Drive and Arosa. The Aerial map is brought up for reference of the areas in question. 2289 Chamonix Ln should be the west end of the upper Chamonix. 2449 Chamonix should not be in the east end of lower Chamonix, as well as the duplexes on the east side of Chamonix just past Chamonix chalets. The map is gone through for the corners of the area May 17, 2022 - Page 408 of 549 to ensure the appropriate properties are being included. Slight adjustments are being proposed. Looking on the south side of I 70, the commissioners review the included lots. On the west side of this lower area, the line is drawn to the Town boundary. Gillette is concerned that including properties in this map will lead to inappropriate zoning again. Phillips whether the future re-zonings will come back to them at the P E C. That they’ll have another chance to look at this and make suggestions. This is a conceptual overview plan, not individual zoning, not lot by lot, correct? Gennett confirms. Phillips says we are here to provide some flexibility moving forward. Gennett says there is nothing regulatory about this document. W hen we get to the implementation level, the rezoning process will be much more exact. At this level it is more of a guideline and an expression of the intent. The real detail and fine tuning come in when we go to modify zoning. Planner Spence adds that when staff begins to look at rezoning options, we look at more than existing buildings, including location, size of lots, topography, character etc.… W e’ll be looking more at the intrinsic qualities of the property for any rezoning. More discussion happens on the process of master plan versus zoning and their relation. Pratt does not see any sustainability or environmental recommendation. He would like to see solar or other energy systems be encouraged in new buildings through this plan. He does not like condition #2, and that it is very vague. W ould like to see more specificity with more measured heights and not a build to line. Dominic Mauriello working on behalf of the V L HA. The V LHA submitted a comment to the P E C, and it covers the chapters in the masterplan. He believes it would be a good idea to review. He feels the P E C should do the heavy lifting and it should all be set by the time it gets to Town Council. He would like to see a redlined version rather than going to Town Council with a set of conditions. He gives examples of how he thinks intent could be lost in the process. The plan is wonderful, and they’ve done a really good job. I t’s 100 times better than what we have now. There are really good alternatives included in there. He would encourage the P E C in the next step of rezoning to get that moving so we can see redevelopment. Pratt agrees. Galen Aasland believes that words matter. He believes that one of the purposes of this is to put in an appropriate zoning. He would like to see the masterplan require the new multi-family zone district that is added not be able to do an S D D. Gillette feels uncomfortable with approving this with the conditions. He would like to see the masterplan redlined. Perez agrees with Gillette. A redlined version would be clearer as to what the May 17, 2022 - Page 409 of 549 P E C’s recommendations are. Let’s be clear, lets add language and be specific. Gennett asks if the P E C would like a redlined version? At least four commissioners confirm. Discussion around the dates, times, corrections, and revisions is had. Comments will be color coded based on the recommending body. Gennett requests a tabling to the next meeting on the 11th of October. Karen Perez moved to table to October 11, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces project and begins presentation. He summarizes current waterbody setback requirements as well the proposed language for the new amendment. Gillette asks about the recent release into Gore Creek. Planner Wadden responds there were 120 dead fish. The extent of the problem went to the I nternational Bridge. There was also an absence of algae and other aquatic life in the river. State agencies are also involved with investigating this incident. Gillette asks how big a deal 120 dead fish are? Wadden responds that it isn’t a huge amount if he could determine that that was the full extent of the impacts. They were not able to get water samples until 24 hours after the incident. 2.08 million gallons of potable water was discharged, with an unknown quantity of other water. There were no concerns to drinking water supply. Phillips has received a lot of concerns from the community. Can the P E C request to get a status report from Pete Wadden in two weeks? He would like to invite Eagle River W ater and Sanitation, and Colorado state agencies. He also wants to reach out to Vail Resorts to see if they would come to the status report. Community members saw dead fish at the I nternational Bridge. A news report said not to go in the river at the moment with copper sulfate levels. He says we need to know the damage and the responsible parties, as well as the future plan for river restoration. He wants to make sure that this continues to be checked moving forward. Wadden responds he is happy to address these concerns. Kurz agrees with Phillips. Board is unanimous in requesting an update. May 17, 2022 - Page 410 of 549 Perez asks if the joint commission has met on this. Planner Wadden continues through presentation. He touches on the importance of riparian restoration and the Town’s efforts in recent years. He references the Gore Creek Action plan for strategies to engage private property owners. He outlines the objectives of the Riparian Corridor and the proposed new regulations. He explains the definition of the Ordinary High- Water Mark. Gillette asks how many non-conformities we are creating? Wadden says under the current setbacks there are 111 non-conforming structures. The new recommendation would lead to 142. Of those, 92 are non-conforming under current regulations. Gillette asks how many structures are on the creek. Wadden responds there are close to 400. Gillette asks if we create a non-conforming structure, what does that do to development rights? Roy responds that they would have the same property rights, it would just affect where they could build. Perez says that making the structure non-conforming does affect property rights. Gillette asks about property on Matterhorn Circle. W hat if they would have to rebuild their house? Roy says they would have to meet the standards under the new code. Kjesbo says they got variances to build there originally. Perez says non-conforming status affects insurance for HOAs and financing. She has a problem making so many buildings non-conforming. She says we have to balance the proposal with property rights and impacts on the community. She cites a letter of concern from a local HOA, and says she wants to get this right. Wadden says the HOA in question is currently non-conforming. Perez wants to decrease rather than increase the amount of non-conforming structures. Wadden says other setback distances are an option. 25’ was chosen because it most closely approximated existing setbacks. Gillette asks if you can shorten the setback but increase the riparian buffer. Would this make fewer houses non-conforming? Wadden says the issue is that defensible space would become a problem. People building right to the setback would conflict with fire department recommendations for defensible space. May 17, 2022 - Page 411 of 549 Roy says in regard to design standards it gives property owners some space for landscaping choices before reaching the no-mow zone. 25 feet is the balance between town code, fire department, design standards, and the fewest non-conformities. Gillette asks if property owners been notified? Wadden says not all of them. Gillette says we need to reach out to all of them and get feedback. Perez says it will help to determine the harmony of the various criteria. Wadden recommends taking a look at individual properties on the maps provided. Gillette asks how accurate are they? Wadden says they’re a good approximation. Pratt asks how many non-conforming structures are within the 20’ setback? Wadden says they have the lines on the map but not the exact numbers. Pratt says he is a property owner on the creek and has built his house to existing setback requirements. I t would be good to see the number of non- conforming structures at 20-foot setbacks. Phillips says the 8th fairway on the golf course is a large encroachment. He asks if there has been a conversation with golf course management if they can restructure that area? Wadden says there have been conversations but it’s a debate between playability and resource protection. They are trying to find the balance there. Gillette asks who is present from the fire department? He asks Paul Cada to speak on defensible space. Paul Cada the W ildfire Program Administrator says they have been working with the applicants for a while. W hat is presented today is the compromise between the interests. He says there are allowances for the defensible space. He says when things are wet around the creek the risk is low and cites examples from California fires. He claims the fire department can support what is in the presented language. Wadden says the 20-foot setback establishes 27.1 unbuildable acres. The number of non-conforming structures increasing between existing and proposed regulations may not be statistically significant. Gillette would like to have a better understanding of the effects on a homeowner of becoming non-conforming and how that impacts financing and other factors. Roy says we can look into that, as well as weigh that with the health of Gore May 17, 2022 - Page 412 of 549 Creek. Gillette stresses the importance to make informed decisions. Planner Spence says we have not seen insurance decisions related to zoning non-conformities. Wadden wants to provide funds and resources to property owners undergoing changes. He reiterates staff recommendations relating to the proposed ordinance. Perez would like more information, as well as notifying the public and getting public feedback. Gillette agrees. Wadden says they will increase these efforts. Kurz asks about public notification being marginally effective? Wadden outlines public outreach on Project Rewild. He says at the time, the town council was concerned about providing funds for individual landscaping projects. Perez says she is on the board of an association that would be affected. She wants to notify associations not just property owners that would be impacted. Kurz talks about balancing health of river with individual homeowners. He says we have a moral if not legal obligation to make sure river is as healthy as possible. W e also have to consider the existing property ownership. He says it’s a tricky balance, and we need to address the points that have been made. Gillette says the town should target problem properties rather than issue blanket proclamations. Wadden says there is a list of stream areas that are the most degraded. The process needs to include an equitable approach to homeowners. Pratt asks about flags concerning pesticides in use and the progress on this issue. Wadden says Under Colorado law the buck stops with state. Localities cannot pass more stringent regulations. Town attorneys have advised against action. The Colorado Department of Agriculture did testing for pesticides and herbicides in the creek and the town is awaiting the results. Gillette asks if there are better products for lawncare. Wadden says root treatment is better than sprays. Regarding lawncare, it’s more about lawncare than keeping out pests. The town utilizes organic herbicides and fertilizers. Gillete asks if organic practices are better for the creek? Wadden clarifies organic fertilizers are better but not better than no fertilizer. May 17, 2022 - Page 413 of 549 Gillette asks if we have done outreach to local landscapers? Wadden says from 2015-2019 a local workshop has gathered around 40 landscapers regarding the best practices in Creekside landscaping. I n the last two years, there have been zoom presentations along similar lines. Gillette says there could be more outreach every spring. Wadden says he has produced three videos for the website and landscapers about alternatives to pesticides in landscaping. Gillette wants to add in some bullet points for people who won’t watch the videos. Perez asks if you need two weeks. Wadden says I think we can do this in two weeks. Spence says another cycle would be required for public comment and outreach. Kurz asks for public input. Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He says he has worked for years with the existing setback of 30’. Having that changed now would have a large impact. He says the maps shown today are not going to be surveying accurate. He applauds the motives and says we’re all in favor of riparian buffer. He cites other studies regarding the cleansing effects of riparian buffers and supports the 10’ riparian buffer. He says changing the stream setback is different. Nothing suggests 25’ is better than 20’. He is glad the P E C is considering the impacts on non- conforming structures. He says it is inaccurate that the centerline moves around a lot. I t would have been better if they had done the high water mark from the beginning, but the town has already been built with the old regulations. He says this will open a can of worms of non-conforming buildings. These buildings do not have a lot of flexibilities with variances. He says the board can’t depend on relief mechanism of variances for new non- conforming buildings. He says the code language needs work. W hat about stormwater management activities that may be beneficial to do in the 10’ buffer? Gillette asks why that would be precluded? Mauriello says it is precluded in the proposal. He wants to think about how non-conforming structures are created and work out the inconsistencies. He says the town can be clearer about how you measure the centerline. I n his analysis, the 20’ setback much more approximates the existing setback today. He says the town could use existing 30’ or proposed 20’, whichever is more restrictive. He also says the definition of high water mark needs some work and the FE MA floodplain information is different from the streambank. He suggests the town work with some of the surveyors to find what they typically use. He suggests incorporating more input from the town attorney and have them look at it before recommendation to town council. He is happy to help with some of the language if that is needed and says he can May 17, 2022 - Page 414 of 549 come back with examples. Gillette asks for an email summarizing these comments. Mauriello says there are other concerns from community members that weren’t able to be here today. Gillette asks if Wadden can meet with a surveyor regarding questions of the high water mark. Wadden confirms. Kurz asks if there is additional public comment? J ohn Rediker wants a better understanding of the language that references two year flood lines, especially regarding a definition and calculation method. He wonders if there are other studies out there, so decisions are based upon science and not anecdotes. He asks where is the evidence that insurance rates will go up for non-conforming structures? Siri Roman is the director of operations for Eagle River Water and Sanitation. She says the decision is hard for the community, but Gore Creek need initiatives like this to get off the 303(d) list of impaired waterways. Vail is a model town with its creek restoration programs. She is also a Vail resident with two kids, who have spent a lot of time in Gore Creek. Her kids would like more wildlife and less tall buildings in town. She asks the board to consider the hard decisions for the future of Vail. Holly Loff is the Executive Director for the Eagle River W atershed Council speaking in support of the ordinance. She has worked successfully with the town on past restoration projects. The riparian areas are critical to water quality and stream health. She says Vail is a leader in the valley and this initiative is the natural next step. She also says the stream health and water quality is worth the effort of addressing these questions. Gillette asks if there are any studies on 20’ versus 25’ setbacks. Loff says the Eagle River watershed plan didn’t have specific numbers for setbacks. The correct number varies by geology and hydrology. She would be happy to look into that more W ith W adden. Gillette asks if hydrologists have been involved? Wadden says that they have been involved in the process. He can look at the difference between 20’ and 25’ buffers. Gillette wants to see difference between 10’ and 15’ riparian buffers and studies to that effect. Wadden says they will have more of that information next time. Bellm says Oct. 25 meeting is the next meeting date to allow for public notification. Motion to table. May 17, 2022 - Page 415 of 549 Karen Perez moved to table to October 25, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4.A request for the review of an extension to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, to allow the continued use of the yurt at the Vail Nature Center for a period of three (3) years, located at 841 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted (Ford Park Nature Center) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0039) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Kristen Bertuglia Planner:J onathan Spence 1. Upon the completion of the use of the yurt, or three (3) years from date of this approval, whichever happens earlier, the Applicant shall remove the yurt and foundation and shall revegetate all disturbed soils with native vegetation. Planner Spence presents history of the application and outlines request. Gillette asks about the 3 year timeframe? Spence says we need to hold the town equally responsible as private property owners. Kurz asks if there are any other board questions? Spence clarifies to ask for public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date where it will be heard concurrently with a Minor Subdivision and Rezoning application. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Spence asks for uncertain table date. He will combine the application with other relevant applications. Brian Gillette moved to table. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1.September 13, 2021 P E C Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it May 17, 2022 - Page 416 of 549 passed (7-0). 4.I nformational Update 4.1.Update on W ildlife Fencing in the I -70 Corridor 10 min. Applicant: Planner:Pete W adden Spence provides update on wildlife fencing project. Phillips asks if there is encroachment on private property? Spence says it is within the C D OT right of way. 5.Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 417 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N October 25, 2021, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert Absent: None 2.Main Agenda 2.1.A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use permit to reflect an increase in student enrollment, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C20-0026) 20 min. Applicant:Vail Mountain School Planner:J onathan Spence Kurz says Commissioner Pratt will join after the first item on the agenda. Planning Manager J onathan Spence provides the history of the application and introduces the applicants. Dominic Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School (V MS). He references his memo to the board and asks for a tabling to next summer. He references various ongoing and future studies. He says it doesn’t make sense to do engineering on roadway improvements until studies are complete. Mauriello quickly goes over the items in the memo. The applicants are also looking at other issues on campus like stacking, and ways to address this. The one lane exit on the frontage road could be changed. They are also studying the employee housing property and ingress and egress in that lot. He is asking for a tabling until all issues can be addressed. Kurz is disappointed that we’re so late in resolving a problem that has been there since 2000. Now we’re being asked to kick the can down the road another six months. He would be more upset if Tom Kassmel didn’t think that extra time was necessary. He hopes school and staff make sure that we’re ahead of the game for future reference. Other than that, he is in favor of granting the timeframe. May 17, 2022 - Page 418 of 549 Perez is disappointed, she references the timeline from the original presentation in April. She is discouraged that they had exceeded the limit in 2014 and nothing was done at that time. She is frustrated at the delays; this is not a new issue and the school is well aware of it. I f this didn’t have to do with education, she would want to pull the use permit. V MS thinks the conditions of its permit don’t affect it. I n deference to Tom Kassmel, she understands the extension, but would not want to extend it longer – it is unacceptable Phillips asks when V MS became aware they were non-conforming. Mauriello does not know the exact date, says there is new management at the school. Perez reiterates the 2014 point. Phillips asks for clarification. Spence talks about past applications regarding the parking and greenhouse. Gillette asks when people knew there was an issue with the frontage road? Spence is not certain. Mauriello says everyone was not aware it would need a C D OT Access Permit. The school side did not know it meant millions of dollars. The school wants to do the right thing and are paying attention to this issue. They are trying to address these things correctly. Perez asks what was done in the last 6 months other than forming a committee? Mauriello says they have hired a team of consultants and experts, they talked to van services, are looking at studies, and put together an application for a school zone permit submitted in August. They are coordinating with the town for school zone study. They are taking the issue seriously and trying to do thing immediately and solve long term issues Phillips asks about what specifically was done in 2014? Perez says they knew they were over the condition in 2014. Kurz summarizes the board’s concerns. He says we should go with the extension but there is a clear message to the process needed. Kjesbo agrees and says they will have to modify their plans for what C D OT says anyway. He doesn’t see much choice in the delay. Kurz references a different use for the existing berm. He feels strongly that the berm is not sacred. Mauriello says the berm is in the right of way and they have a permit from C D OT but he takes the point. Amended Motion for continuation with a meeting in J uly of 2022. May 17, 2022 - Page 419 of 549 Board discusses the proper date for the next meeting. Rollie Kjesbo moved to continue to J uly 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain:(1)Pratt 2.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0046) The applicant requests this item be tabled to November 8, 2021. 15 min. Applicant:K H W ebb Architects & Mauriello Planning Group Planner:Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 8, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3.A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14, First Amendment to Spraddle Creek Estates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0049) 20 min. Applicant:S C Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC, represented by Davis Urban LLC and English & Assoc. Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces application and goes through presentation. He introduces the applicants. Gillette asks about previous discussion regarding building envelopes here. Roy doesn’t recall that specifically. Spence talks about the past history of the lot, there have been no changes to GRFA or site coverage. Gillette asks if notification to neighbors is required? Spence says the neighbors approved it during the application process. Matt Davis is the applicant; he says he is happy to take questions. Kurz asks for public input. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. May 17, 2022 - Page 420 of 549 Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Roy goes through a presentation on the history of the proposal and addresses some changes and the criteria for review. He introduces the applicants. Environmental Director Kristen Bertuglia walks through the history of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. She references the identified sources of impairment of Gore Creek. She talks about the community and stakeholder input in the process, as well as the actions of the Town of Vail in service to the Gore Creek plan. W e’re here today for the last recommended strategy which is regulation. She believes we have arrived at the most appropriate solution and introduces W adden. Watershed Education Coordinator Peter W adden goes through a presentation which addresses the questions the board had from the last meeting. He talks about the goals from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation. He addresses the effectiveness of setbacks of different widths. He says the centerline setback is inconsistent and ineffective. He talks about how the town has dealt with non-conformity in the past with items like wood shake shingles and the W UI code. He addresses the number of non-conforming properties with the different setback distances. He talks about the actions’ property owners can take. He reviews the public outreach accomplished since the last meeting. He talks about the implications of non-conformity as it relates to the streambank setbacks. He talks about the definition of the ordinary high-water mark (OHW M). Wadden introduces J ason Carey, the Principal River Engineer of River Restoration. Carey talks about his past work and how it relates to Vail. He says the OW HM allows the setbacks to be different in different places. I t is a more logical approach from a healthy river standpoint. He talks about two major federal regulations: FE MA national flood insurance (100-year floodplain), and waters and wetlands defined under the Clean Water Act administer by the Corps of Engineers. He talks about Vail’s goals, and recommends following the FE MA model as a good way to empower local communities. He talks about the F E MA process and how that can be applied at the local level. The goal is to establish a baseline that can be administered and regulated locally. Variances to the line can be requested from the floodplain administrator. He recommends using this model but with two-year elevations. I t would be modeled after the existing process in Vail with the 100 year. Gillette asks if the 2-year mapping has been done. Wadden confirms yes. Gillette asks how the 2-year line relates to the 100-year floodplain? Wadden says the 100-year line is further out than the two years. The 2-year line is based on the two-year average and used to determine the OHW M. Carey says it is a statistical average of historical runoff. Over 30 years of data is evaluated to determine the two-year flood line. May 17, 2022 - Page 421 of 549 Gillette asks if the town is eligible for FE MA flood insurance? Carey confirms. Wadden says the proposal has no impact on the 100-year floodplain. I t is the same process, but the elevations are different. Pratt asks about the letter from Alderman-Bernstein. They are not affected but they raise an interesting point. Wadden clarifies – Pratty says never mind. Gillette asks how are they involved if they’re not affected by the regulation? Roy clarifies that the notification was sent to all property owners in Vail. Pratt asks if their threats were hollow? Wadden says he’s not qualified to comment, but the town attorney is drafting a response. Kurz asks if the proposal has been vetted by the town attorney. Wadden says it has along with the proposed code language. Kjesbo is generally supportive. He asks when issues arise in the future, will this be reviewed by staff? He also references a future project as it relates to stormwater management and impacts. Wadden talks about how other towns handle stormwater impacts. He says we’re not proposing any code changes that would dictate that at this point. Kjesbo says that could be something for future consideration. Gillette asks about the project Kjesbo referenced. He says Public W orks usually keeps good track of that. Kjesbo clarifies the details of the referenced projects. W ith best practices, some will do it, some wont. Wadden says it has been discussed internally, it is something to consider in the future. Roy says in practice when properties are redeveloped around the creek, environmental makes comments on best practices. Phillips says the new proposal puts 26 properties in non-compliance. He asks if they only realize that status during redevelopment. Wadden confirms. Phillips says this doesn’t initiate an immediate hardship on the property. They are non-compliant only in redevelopment. Wadden says there are properties that have remained non-compliant for decades. W hen they rebuild is the only time they must come into compliance. May 17, 2022 - Page 422 of 549 Gillette asks about remodeling a deck that’s non-conforming. Roy says if you start enlarging a deck the conformity would come into play. Gillette asks about different criteria for theoretical deck expansion. Roy explains current regulations. Spence says if a deck is non-conforming, maintenance is the only work that would not require coming into compliance. Gillette asks about non-conforming landscaping. Roy says generally you only have to bring into conformance the area that is non-conforming if that is in the scope of the project. Gillette clarifies if a remodel project is big enough, more compliance issues come into play. Roy says if you’re removing 50% of the GRFA, that comes into play. He talks about other benchmarks like building materials with 500 square foot additions and that there are multiple benchmarks that trigger different requirements. Gillette clarifies that the benchmark here is a voluntary remodel, Roy confirms. Pratt cites a public letter, proposing that you can trade setback distance for increased riparian zone. Wadden says staff has discussed this, and the goal is to create something that is standard and uniform across town. The current regulations can confuse people, there is value in having a standard across town. I t would be difficult to enforce the proposed idea. W e’d run into issues if we were shrinking the distance between setback and riparian zone. Roy says the counsel and public would like more time, so they will be asking for a continuation today. Kurz asks if there are funds available to help homeowners. Wadden says homeowners are not required to do anything that would cost them money. We would ask them to stop mowing within 10’ of the creek. I f the ordinance is adopted by the P E C and Town Council, he will ask for funds to that effect. Kurz asks for public comment. Gillette asks for feedback from the town attorney of any legal ramifications. Roy confirms. Bellm says there are several people online and in the room that would like to speak. Kurz says they will allow three minutes each for public comment and not May 17, 2022 - Page 423 of 549 necessarily engage in back and forth. Linn Brooks is the General Manager of Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. She talks about water sampling done in the past. Gore Creek was significantly impacted, and urbanization was the primary stressor. She talks about the factors that influence this and how Gore Creek was listed on 303D list. She brings up the Urban Runoff group and its actions. The river is getting healthier, and the setback ordinance will allow nature to return the stream to a healthier state. Several years ago the Town Council set the goal of getting Gore Creek off the list and this will require the regulations such as the one here today. For these reasons, E RW S D supports the proposal. J ohn Rediker asks about the definition of the OHW M. How will future drought conditions impact this, and is the calculation always a rolling 30 years? Do we need to define 2 year floodline? Gillette says we’re not answering questions right now but made a note of the questions. Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge. He is glad to hear that they’re not asking for a final decision today. He says the proposed language you have has not been fully vetted by Kendra Carberry and hopes they will not take action today. He has three main issues. The first is the OHW M line and where it is located? He doesn’t know if there will be a full dataset to establish this line throughout town. He references the letter to the board, and the methodology of how you determine the OHW M. He says we’re in favor of identifying the OHW M and need to know where that is. He says he is recommending a 20’ setback, but also wonders what a 22’ setback would look like. How it would affect non-conforming structures and acreage. He also brings up the tributaries and says he will submit additional comments in writing. Wendall Porterfield speaks for homeowners in the 11th filing. He has some confusion about how the 2-year floodline is determined and asks for clarification. He also asks about the code language, whether “shall” means has to be. He also asks if projects like deck enlargements can go into the riparian zone? He references the streambank protection ordinance, and whether this would apply to town property equally? He asks if the golf course would be impacted, as they might be one of the primary causes here. Devin Duvall is the District W ildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and W ildlife. He expresses support for the ordinance. He says recent events underscores the need for this type of regulation. He asks the board to look at written comments from his agency. He says riparian zones occupy a small amount of land yet have a disproportionate impact. Most wildlife depends on them, they serve as wildlife corridors and they remove pollutants. Gore Creek is a Gold Medal Fishery, and anglers contribute to Eagle County economy. He reiterates his support for the proposed ordinance. Rodney Linafelter says he is strongly in support of the proposal. As a recreational user of the creek, he has noticed a large amount of non-native sand that is appearing. He used to live on Booth Creek, at one point he was informed he was non-compliant with a structure and landscaping and worked with staff to address this. He references another case he heard where the developers of properties were awarded utilities in exchange for easements. May 17, 2022 - Page 424 of 549 His final question is whether we are addressing Gore Creek or the tributaries as well? Siri Roman is Director of Operations for E RW S D and a resident of Vail. Her children are often in the creek and it means a lot to their family. W hile the ordinance is a takeaway for some, she asks the board to consider the community impacts of a healthier creek. I t will take tough decisions like this to preserve Gore Creek and its tributaries. She says this will be important with increased flooding from climate change and talks about some of the effects of the Mill Creek incident. Carrie Bernstein is an attorney from Alderman Bernstein. She submitted a letter on behalf of her clients; the Delpontes at 3070 Booth Creek Drive. She says the Town of Vail is condemning the portion of his property that is on Gore Creek. I f the case proceeds there is some truth that the client and others will not have creekside property. This buffer will go right up to his building and patio. The impact to private property rights is missing from the discussion today. She says the 10’ zone is a regulatory taking and a significant impact to property rights. She says the Town of Vail should pay compensation for this. J ames Dilzell speaks from Eagle River Watershed Council. The council supports the proposal, and he talks about the importance of the riparian area. He says stormwater runoff is an increasing threat to the river. Property owners often find increased value once the areas are established, this will lessen the degradation of environmental zones. He thinks this is a critical next step. Kurz asks if Wadden would like to comment on questions. Wadden says he will have more detailed data available on the OHW M moving forward. W e are not condemning properties, that is a town-owned parcel. There is no debate about the Delponte property extending to the stream. Pratt asks if he is more than 25’ from the river he is not affected. Wadden says that is correct. The property has not been specifically surveyed but Town maps indicate that the proposed setback lines do not extend as far as Mr. Delponte’s property line. Pratt says he is a homeowner on the creek. He is in favor of the goals but says anything less than 30’ is not as effective so it may be arbitrary numbers at that point. He says he is not a lawyer but thinks creating new non- conforming properties could be considered a taking. He asks staff to consider a system that trades expanded riparian buffer to shrink the building setback. Siebert had these concerns last time regarding takings. But he considered if we don’t do anything, the taking that occurs is that the stream is degraded down the road. There is a benefit the property owners are getting, that should also be considered. Gillette brings up the comment about sand in the river. Wadden says this has been identified by staff. Staff has worked with C D OT May 17, 2022 - Page 425 of 549 to address this, he references the East Vail Exchange, and West Vail Pass Expansion. Black Gore Creek has a healthy bug population with higher sand levels, while Gore Creek has bug populations that do not meet state standards. There are things going on in Vail that impact the creek beyond the traction sand. He says we have to consider the tradeoffs being in a semi-urban environment. Gillette references the comments about the OHW M. Are they moving or fixed metrics? Wadden says they can be updated on a regular timescale, and there is an opportunity for residents to appeal the line. He says increased technology like lidar can help measure this, and streams are dynamic systems. Gillette says we could have more or fewer non-conforming structures in the future. Wadden says if we restore riparian habitat, it’s less likely people will lose land to erosion. W e can’t predict accurately right now if there would be more or less non-conforming properties in the future, streams are always changing. Gillette references a property where 50 feet washed out. Wadden says they haven’t established a timescale for readdressing these numbers. Roy says we don’t have them for the GS A hazards, it could be included in the proposal. Wadden talks about F E MA floodline. Properties that have lost streambank have been permitted to reestablish property they have. Having a line now will establish a baseline of where we are now. Gillette asks if the ordinance discusses reclaiming property. Perez says the ordinance is well intentioned, but there is a lot more that needs to be done to provide clarity. Changing from the centerline method to OHW M we are making things less certain for the community and property owners. There is uncertain language regarding the OHW M. She has concerns about the legal ramifications of this. She asks why we are going from the centerline to the OHW M. She is not sure if it is worth the uncertainty we are potentially creating. Gillette asks why we’re switching to the 2-year floodline? Wadden says equity and uniformity around town are the primary motivations. I t creates a more uniform setback rather than the inconsistency of the centerline. Gillette asks about the two methods and if the centerline moves? Wadden says it does change. The OHW M is sensitive to bank changes and erosion. Perez asks if the OHW M changes every two years? May 17, 2022 - Page 426 of 549 Wadden says it doesn’t change every two years. The 30-year dataset determines the average of the highest waterline in a two-year period. W e could set a timeline to change these numbers as appropriate. Gillette asks when going from the centerline to 2-year high water mark is it harder to determine. I t seems they are equally difficult to determine. Wadden says it is easier to determine the high-water mark. The dataset will be made available soon. Gillette says that dataset should be produced where the public can react to it before the final meeting. Phillips says the centerline of the river has changed significantly. From a consistency standpoint, the OHW M moves less than the centerline. Gillette asks if redevelopment uses off a map that exists. Phillips asks how old is the current map? Wadden is not sure, it could be around 2002. Kjesbo asks about the 2-year high water mark calculation. Wadden clarifies. Gillette asks for further clarification on the calculation. Carey says it is a statistical analysis of flows that happen every year. Kjesbo would like clarification for the board and for the public as well. Carey says the 2-year floodline is analogous to the 100-year floodline. Perez is confused about the calculation like the other board members. She doesn’t understand the 2-year floodline methodology and would like further clarification. Gillette says it is important how often the map is updated. Perez asks if that is true of the centerline and when it was updated. Wadden confirms, says it was last updated a couple decades ago. People could hire a wetlands specialist as part of an appeal of the elevation-based baseline. Perez asks how much this would cost? Wadden says the cost of a surveyor ’s time. Perez says it is shifting the burden to a homeowner. Gillette asks if you can appeal the 100-year marks today? Carey says you can through an involved process. I n order to regulate, Vail needs a baseline to regulate against, which is what this system does. May 17, 2022 - Page 427 of 549 Gillette asks if you can appeal the setbacks of the centerline right now? Wadden thinks you can have them surveyed Pratt says it is similar to the hazard’s maps, an engineer or surveyor can look at the site. Phillips says we all support this effort, but we want to establish standards that are discernable to the public. He says an updated centerline map would help. I t’s important to get a little more data, otherwise we’re spinning our wheels. He says we need to clarify some things for property owners and the town. Gillette asks if the centerline was resurveyed? Wadden says it was not as part of that process, and that he will provide the OHW M dataset. He thanks for board for feedback as the process is making a for a better ordinance. Phillips says the group needs to do due diligence on this. Pratt says he had to survey when he his property went right next to a setback line. Mauriello says the streambank setbacks are happening in real time because the surveyors do it as part of an application. I t has always been incumbent upon property owners to provide that data in real time. There is no regular updating of hazard maps. The only updates he is aware of is when the applicant comes in to apply for such. Gillette asks if the OHW M can be identified visually, why is it a confusing metric? Mauriello says he’s been advocating for surveyors doing it by visual inspection. He wants to allow both methodologies, and the least restrictive on the property owner should be the one that is used. Phillips is not sure that’s a great tradeoff. He says we’re also trying to protect the environmental health of the river. Mauriello suggests increasing the no-mow zone. He says to think about what non-conforming status has done to the entirety of West Vail. People don’t want to redevelop and lose what they have. Gillette asks for W adden’s response. Wadden says the maps do not have regulatory sway. Both methods need to be surveyed on the ground. The elevations establish a baseline that make it easier for surveyors. The method Mauriello referred to is ecologically based. Staff believes the elevation method is more effective as a regulation because it is not open to debate. There is still an opportunity for subjectivity in the visual method. An elevations-based baseline leaves less open for debate. Gillette asks how hard is the appeals process? Wadden says it would go to the Town Council like the hazard maps. May 17, 2022 - Page 428 of 549 Gillette asks if the appeals can come to the P E C? Roy says the proposed language mimics the appeals process for the hazard maps. Gillette says it should be as simple as delineating your wetlands. Spence says the difference is who has adopted the maps. I f we don’t have an adopted map, we would have a different process. Gillette says he is trying to get the right process. Roy says we would need something that is adopted by Town Council. Wadden says the town would have to pay to have wetlands delineations done. I t is much less labor intensive to adopt lidar. Gillette says we don’t have to do it like the hazard maps. Let’s establish a baseline, and if not, they can hire a professional. Gillette says appealing to the town council is not an easy process. Phillips says it should not be easy, it should be an elevated process. Ultimately it falls on council; they adopt the maps we are passing this on for recommendation. Gillette says you are getting a better product if you get eyes on the ground. Phillips asks are we not doing that already? Wadden says what they’ve done is based on stream cross-sections with interpolated data in between. Perez says we don’t have language to allow people to appeal? Wadden says they do, Roy says it is in Subsection E of the proposal. Kurz wants to bring the debate to a close. The robust discussion shows that the protection of Gore Creek and tributaries is a major issue we need to address. I t will not be a perfect solution for everybody, but it’s important to continue moving forward. He wants time to allow staff to address these concerns. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5.A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded May 17, 2022 - Page 429 of 549 the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6.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 Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing (826 Forest Road) from Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P S) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) and to zone a portion of the Forest Road ROW to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (P S) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0051) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.7.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.8.A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 826 Forest Road/Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0048) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. 2 min. Applicant:Mexamer Forest Road L L C, represented by K H W ebb Architects Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 22, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1.October 11, 2021 P E C Results May 17, 2022 - Page 430 of 549 Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4.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 inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 431 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N J anuary 24, 2022, 1:00 P M Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz (via phone), J enn Bruno, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Reid Phillips (departed at 4:15pm) Absent: None 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 10 min. No action as a result of executive session. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 90 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Karen Perez calls meeting back to order. All members other than Ludwig Kurz are present. Perez says information germane to the executive session was not present in the session. Therefore, the board has decided to hear item 3.1 today but not reach a final decision due to this fact. Pratt and Bruno agree. Planner Roy introduces the proposal. Water Quality Education Coordinator Peter Wadden gives a presentation on the proposal. He talks about the strategic plan and town efforts along the river in the past. He talks about the process of reaching the proposed May 17, 2022 - Page 432 of 549 ordinance. Gillette asks about the science behind the 25’ setback. Wadden says it comes from the 2008 Planners Guide to W etland Buffers. Gillette asks if this is from the Environmental Law I nstitute. Wadden confirms. Wadden continues presentation. He talks about the community input process. He talks about the criteria for an effective regulation and the goals of an effective regulation. Gillette says he wants elaboration on moving from the center line to high- water mark setback. Wadden says this will be addressed in presentation. W adden talks about the number of non-conforming properties in town. He talks about past code changes, non-conforming properties in town, and the grandfathering process. The proposed code language will increase the number of non- conforming properties from 102 to 128. He says non-conforming status has not impacted home insurance rates. Perez asks if multifamily structures were included as they are usually under commercial insurance. She believes this will increase the commercial liability, asks if Wadden can clarify that point. Wadden says he will follow up. He talks about Town Code 12-18-19 Restoration. Gillette and Perez talk about the challenges of providing restoration within one year per non-conforming code section (12-18-19). Bruno agrees, says we need to give people more time. Gillette says we should move forward with the process on getting that language changed. Wadden talks about the reasoning for using the Ordinary High-W ater Line (OHW L). A centerline-based setback is not effective at places where the stream is widest, where the setback is within the waterway. Wadden introduces Bill Hoblitzell with Lotic Hydrological. Hoblitzell gives a presentation about the difference between the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHW M) and the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW L), as well as the 2-year flood line. He defines the 2-year flood line in hydrological terms. He talks about the 2-year flood, 10-year flood, and 100-year flood measurements for planning and engineering purposes. He talks the process for going from flow rates to inundation maps for planning. Gillette asks about creating cross-sections at Gore Creek as well as the different between the High-W ater Mark and the 2-year flood line. Hoblitzell explains why the 2-year flood line is a great proxy for the active stream channel boundary. He defines bankfull flows, they form the physical May 17, 2022 - Page 433 of 549 marks on the side of the bank. He talks about the US Army Corps of Engineers definition for the OHW M as well as the limitations of the measure. Hoblitzell says the 2-year flood elevation is a good objective baseline. Field surveying will get you a bunch of different elevations from different people. He talks about the safety benefits for larger setbacks. Pratt asks about difference between the Army Corps’ OHW M method and the OHW L. Hoblitzell says the OHW M is based on physical indicators in field surveys. Wadden adds that both measures try and determine the elevation where the stream fills it banks. Gillette says the lines now are a computer simulation, but the proposed ordinance allows homeowners to do a visual survey for the appeals process. Wadden says the OHW L is the best baseline for regulation. He acknowledges that there will be instances where a homeowner can appeal the OHW L to the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) by enlisting a qualified professional. Gillette asks if the previous version of the proposal had appeals going to Town Council. Wadden says this was amended and the recent version has the P E C as reviewing body for this kind of appeal. Gillette asks if currently staff cannot make a determination is that correct? Wadden says right now the buck falls to the property owner and surveyor to provide that data. Gillette questions the additional level of review. Wadden says the higher level of review would only kick in during an appeal. Pratt says the proposed ordinance requires a letter from the Army Corps for the appeal. W hy can’t we just rely on the surveyor? Wadden says that is why staff is recommending the OHW L over OHW M. He talks about the subjectivity involved in OHW M determinations. A hired consultant needs to have their lines verified by the Army Corps. Perez asks for clarification between the OHW L and OHW M. Wadden talks about the methodology for determining both measures. Gillette asks about the appeal process, is that using statistical modeling or observation? Wadden says as proposed the town would adopt a series of elevations along the stream based on the OHW L. An applicant could hire a consultant to conduct a OHW M study as part of the appeals process. Perez asks how often the OW HL is recalculated. May 17, 2022 - Page 434 of 549 Wadden says the Town Council can choose to update it when they feel it’s time. Perez asks for clarification about the 2-year floodline. Hoblitzell clarifies the timeframe for change, it is about 30 years for significant change to occur. Gillette asks what the P E C is reviewing during the proposed appeal process? He not qualified to review these, could staff review these appeals? Wadden says the appeals would come to the P E C with a staff recommendation. This is a large enough decision that it rises to a town commission. Wadden continues presentation. The OHW M is an Army Corps methodology that uses field indicators. The OHW L is a FE MA method. The ordinance proposes that the OHW L is used for the baseline and the OHW M for appeals. He talks about the method for finding the centerline-based setback. He talks about the method for determining the OHW L in the proposal. Gillette asks what type of professional can determine the high-water mark. Wadden says it would be a qualified professional. Gillette asks if we want to strengthen that language. Wadden says staff didn’t want to limit the number of people qualified to do this. Perez references the proposed appeal language. W hy are we using the OHW M if it is not a reliable standard as presented? Wadden says the method has drawbacks, but neither model is perfect. The best outcome is to incorporate data from both methods and allow applicants to bring that data into the equation. Additionally, it is important to have the Army Corps verify that data. Gillette asks about the process for verification from the Army Corps. Wadden says there is a regional office, they typically verify in three to six weeks in the summer months. They provide a letter that endorses or doesn’t endorse the surveyor ’s line. Bruno asks about the setbacks of neighboring communities. W hich method do they use? Wadden says it varies, some still use the centerline method. Most recently adopted setbacks have used the OHW L as the basis. Pratt asks about challenging the OHW L. Could I get a surveyor to remap the elevations for the OHW L and get new cross sections? Wadden clarifies could a property owner get specific cross sections for their property. May 17, 2022 - Page 435 of 549 Hoblitzell says the cross-section are used to determine the elevations. I t may be more precise, it’s unlikely it will move the elevation towards or from the stream. Pratt asks if it will give you a different line. Hoblitzell says the engineering models will get a similar line even across different computer programs. Wadden gives a case study on Middle Creek. Two qualified wetland scientists found different delineations using the OHW M methodology. Gillette asks if they’re on same side of stream. Wadden confirms. The difference here is why Staff recommends that the Army Corps verify the lines for appeals. Perez asks if the Army Corps will verify these delineations. Wadden says we have not done that yet, but we could, the Corps could do it in the spring. Phillips asks about the appeal language, and references Aspen’s appeal language. He suggests that the language should require a licensed professional for the appeal. W e can clean up that portion of language of who can make the new determination. He likes the option of an appeal process. He has no problem with the P E C reviewing this because it is elevated to that level. Wadden says he will follow up on that. Gillette asks if the Army Corps has a stipulation on who has to prepare the survey that they review. Wadden says he can look further into it. Gillette says the town language should be congruent with the Corps requirements. Perez references public comment, a memo from Mauriello Planning Group regarding a grandfathering provision. Has staff reviewed this? Wadden says an applicant will need a completed application submitted before the code changes, the laws currently in effect will apply. Gillette disagrees with this. He talks about his past experience; we don’t give people enough time. There should always be some sort of waiting period where people can plan ahead for changes. Wadden says he understand the sentiment. He will need to speak to the town attorney regarding that process. Perez says there is specific language on grandfathering. Wadden says staff opinion is that there should not be. May 17, 2022 - Page 436 of 549 Gillette disagrees and thinks that there should be a grandfathering clause. Like at the Evergreen, these projects take years to plan, there needs to be an allowance. Planning Manager Spence says you could delay the date of enactment. However, we can’t go by applicants claiming maybe they’re thinking about developing, that’s not a legal standard. There’s no grandfathering of properties that might be considered. Pratt agrees and recommends picking a deferred implementation date, maybe J anuary 1, 2023. Gillette wants to keep looking at it and maybe get more public comment. Wadden references images of existing and proposed setbacks in relation to the Evergreen Lodge Gillette says the diagram is not clear without a scale. Phillips says the appeal process is still available to applicants. He doesn’t see a whole lot of difference between the existing and proposed in the images. He says at some point we have to draw a line that allows us to keep the river healthy. I f we keep kicking the can, it doesn’t help us protect one of our greatest assets. I f we continue to allow variances, I don’t think we’re doing much as a commission. Phillips says if the Army Corps has a certain threshold, that is theirs not ours. I f we’re requesting their verification then this is included in their verification, we don’t need that exact language. He likes the fact that they will ask for the Corps verification and put the burden on the homeowners to show evidence. He says there are certain protections that we need to put into place. Gillette says an appeal on the lines may be different than the hardship proposed on the hotel. The grandfathering or the delay is a better tool to deal with these issues. Phillips has no problem with a delay. He doesn’t want to see grandfathering of unverified projects. He agrees with Pratt in terms of delaying the ordinance. Perez says we should continue moving through the Staff presentation. Wadden reiterates the reasons for changing the setback, including the direction from the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He reiterates why staff is recommending the 25’ building setback from the OHW L. He says these actions could help get Gore Creek off the 303D list of impaired waterways. Perez asks for public comment. Kurz returns. He was listening to the presentation. He would like to ask Perez to continue running the meeting since he does not have video. He says the whole issue is being taken seriously by everybody on the board and community. He says staff is doing an amazing job with presenting the materials. He agrees with comments that Phillips made, we’re losing site a little bit of what we’re trying to do to protect the creek. W e get caught up in May 17, 2022 - Page 437 of 549 individual issues and not looking at protecting the asset that is the creek. Perez asks for a copy of the two presentations. She asks for public comment. She says it is an opportunity for comments but not a question and answer or debate session. Gillette asks if the public can receive these presentations. Bellm says they can be added to the P E C webpage. Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge owners. He talks about the work done by Heather Huston on Mill Creek and that they would have appreciated the opportunity to look at that with the town. The data displayed by the town regarding the setbacks in that area is probably not accurate. He applauds the goals of the proposal and doesn’t have issues with 10 foot no mow area. He references his letter to the P E C and asks what are the things that are allowed within the setback. He says the assumption being made is that the 2-year flood is the accurate measure to be using. He says we need to look at the areas throughout town, the 1.5-year measure might be more accurate for this proposal. The problem is the implementation of this, 5 feet matters, it is not trivial to some people. The point of the grandfathering is what Pratt suggested, giving people time to get their applications in before the changes. He talks about the two methodologies, there should be an allowance that you can go out there and have everyone agree on the marking of the line. He says it would be a good idea to look at the current GI S maps. J essica Hernreich is a Vail Village landowner and citizen. She says if you change the setbacks without a grandfathering clause you are setting up some property owners for failure because they were built under the previous regulations. She would also like to know more about how often the high water line is changed or addressed. How is that reconciled with the purchasing of water rights for snowmaking with Vail Resorts? Wendell Porterfield appears on behalf of property owners in the 11th filing. He wants clarification on how the OHW L is established. W ill the town be required to revisit the dataset used to determine the OHW L? Regarding the setbacks, who makes determination on structures that lawfully exist on a certain date? Blondie Vucich is an East Vail resident of 30 years. She says at one point the creek had gold medal fishing status. Landscaping practices have contributed to the degradation of the creek. The Vucich family reinstituted riparian habitat on their property, they no longer mow or fertilize. The proposed setbacks and moderation are not unreasonable, living here requires coexisting with ecosystems. Perez says the board has read a lot of written public comment that was submitted. Blondie Vucich says this type of shared information is really helpful and not everyone goes back to the record to review the comments. Dan J ohnson is General Manager at the Grand Hyatt Vail. He is thankful for the thorough proposal and the concern they have is that Gore Creek is their front yard. They have been good stewards over the years, they respect the May 17, 2022 - Page 438 of 549 no-mow zone. The conversation about a deferred enactment and defining intent to develop should receive more consideration. Gillette asks what timeframe do you think is appropriate? As a community member how many months do you think is appropriate? J ohnson says four to six months may be appropriate for their projects. I t should be more than 90 days; it also includes the availability of purveyors. Len W right is a Vail resident and Planning and W ater Resources Manager at Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. He thinks staff has done a phenomenal job at addressing the complex topics. He says enhancing riparian vegetation has the benefit of shading and better water temperatures. The OHW L model is deterministic so you get the same answer every time, his advice from a policy perspective is to be objective as possible. He advocates for a fixed objective line, he cautions that a F E MA floodplain model is different than the hydrology of a 2-year model, and advocates for a more detailed modeling survey. Staff addressed the horizontal equity issue but should also consider the vertical equity and the steepness of the banks. I n terms of variances and appeals it would be good to consider locations where you could get closer to the stream based on the vertical height. Gillette asks if you’re suggesting that appeals should not use the Army Corps method? Wright says yes, the subjective piece changes season to season and expert to expert. The real question is the appropriate flow rate to be used. He doesn’t want to get in a situation where you pick your expert, would rather be objective and have it defined from the Town’s perspective Gillette asks where the number should lie. Wright would step back from an opinion on that. He says climate change is also changing the statistics which are referenced. The frequency of intense events is changing. Wayne Forman is an attorney representing 1 W illow Bridge Road. They want more time to evaluate the proposal. The 10’ no mow zone is far less of a concern than the 25’ setback that would put the building in non-conforming status. Tom Hopkins lives on the creek in East Vail. He fears a 25’ setback won’t do much for the environment, it’s a minimal aspiration. Are there stretches along the creek where a bigger setback could be accommodated, the golf course for instance. And if we can do that, let’s take the opportunity before there is a lot of development. Perez asks if we could see how that could impact some of those areas. Richard Strauss is from Arvada and visits Gore Creek and Eagle River for flyfishing. He references his written comments and says the OHW M is the line between public and private lands. He recommends the book “Public Rights on Rivers.” He says that public rights should also be considered. Perez says his forum is now to discuss these issues. She asks if there is anything in particular regarding public or private rights that he would like to reference. May 17, 2022 - Page 439 of 549 Strauss suggests the book and says there are a lot of competing issues regarding water rights. Perez asks about the letter sent by Strauss, to make sure that the board receives his letter. Gillette says this is a legislative item, not a quasi-judicial item. The public is allowed to lobby the P E C, but they need to debate in a public forum. Heather Houston speaks from Birch Ecology. She wants to clarify the mapping they did in the field. She says they did do a good job of representing the high-water mark, it’s important to note that there is a new culvert upstream. The photos shown in the presentation were in an anomalous area. I t is not rocket science to see where there is a distinct change in vegetation. They have to look closely at the banks on both sides, and snow complicates the interpretation. She says the discrepancies shown in the presentation were based on old data. She wanted to provide more context to that section. Gillette asks if she can explain the process with the Army Corps verification. Houston says it’s a wetland delineation report, a verification goes to the bottom of their stack. I t is rare for them to visit delineations these days. They process things more quickly with a wetland permit application, a straight delineation can take some time, she had a process that took more than six months. The three to six weeks timeframe is not consistent with her experience. Gillette asks how she would value the verification. Houston says it depends on the applicant, and the level of scrutiny the Corp applies. Gillette asks what kind of consultant has the expertise to dispute the line. Houston says ecologists do wetlands delineations and there is no one measure you have to look at everything. Gillette asks what other kinds of ecologists? Houston says surveyors have asked her for advice, most of the time its fairly obvious, there’s a distinct change in vegetation and topography. Hydrologists, ecologists, wetland scientists, and surveyors can do the work. She doesn’t think the OHW M is guesstimating, it is a direct measurement in the field. The modeling method is based on the quality of the inputs. Lidar data may or may not be accurate enough for an individual property. Perez asks for Houston to be promoted to be able to share some images on her screen. Houston shows a photo of the bank and explains the placement of her flags. Gillette asks does this accurately depict the 2-year floodplain. Houston says no, the 2-year floodplain is not equal to the OHW M in a place like Vail. The 1.5-year measurement might be more equivalent. May 17, 2022 - Page 440 of 549 Gillette says it’s an important thing to resolve, the closer we can get the line to observation is important. We want to lower the discrepancy down from what you see to what we map. Houston says Black Creek Hydrology agrees on the 1.5-year line. I nstead of speculating what the 2-year line is we should go out and measure it on the ground. She doesn’t feel it is imprecise to measure on the ground. Gillette asks about the cost of the measuring. Houston says depending on the project and the size of the property it may be around $2,000. Pratt clarifies the distance between the 2-year statistical average and the bankfull measurement. Houston says you would expect to see the difference between the 2-year line and the OHW M, as shown in the presentation. Depending on the verticality of the bank, the difference between the 2-year line and OHW M varies. She provides additional examples in photographs. Gillette thanks Houston for the explanation. Hoblitzell reiterates that the benefit of the 2-year line is that it is not typically going to be outside of the bank. I t provides a safety margin that benefits the stream. By picking a conservative flow (2-year) over 1.5 year were putting our intent on the side of stream health, the errors fall towards that side. Russ Craney is the General Manager of Vail Residences at Cascade Village. All homeowners are in favor of the riparian zone proposal but are concerned about the 25’ setback as it pertains to decks and other features. I s there some give and take, can a two-story deck encroachment be offset by a larger riparian zone? Regarding the suggested six month window for a Design Review Board (D RB) submittal, he would suggest closer to a nine month window. J ason Carey is a Principal Engineer at River Restoration and consultant to the Town of Vail. He wants to thank everyone for consideration on this nuanced issue. He says everyone’s comments are generally correct because it’s a dynamic system. He encourages the Town to set up a system that can be regulated and managed by the staff. The task is not to fix a dynamic system but set up a way to regulate and manage that. Staff has done an admirable job of that. Tom Vucich is an East Vail resident and wants to support the comments of Phillips and Kurz. He wants to keep the big picture here and not get burdened down with the minutia of specific properties. He hopes that the P E C will support the effort of preserving the creek. J essica Hernreich says that as a resident in the village, she would appreciate if more consideration could be given to the appeals process which sounds daunting in the given timeframe. Gillette asks about the appropriate timeframe for delaying the enactment. May 17, 2022 - Page 441 of 549 Dominic Mauriello likes the idea of delaying until the end of the year. W e’ve had the current setback for 50 years and another nine months isn’t going to make a difference. A minimum could be 120 days, but until the end of the year could be good. Another thing to think about is separating the core area from other areas of town. Perez talks about her experience on the Denver Planning Board. She says the delay there was 11-12 months but that was for rewriting the entire zoning code, not one section. She says until the end of the year might be appropriate in this case. She says it is a complicated issue and would recommend that form based zoning could be applied. She says the P E C needs to balance environmental and planning considerations. Bruno says no one has had issues with the no-mow zone. W e need to enforce this regulation. She would like to reevaluate 1.5 versus 2-year lines and rethink if the Corps of Engineers is the best backup. A more detailed model should be researched. She has no issues with delaying the adoption of this and thinks that the setbacks should be universal and not have different distances in different zones. Gillette is more comfortable with the 2-year line given that it is conservative. He thinks we should take the Corps verification off the appeals process and should trust the ecologists. People didn’t get into the business to cheat it, they got into the business because they care. Kjesbo agrees with Bruno and Gillette. He agrees on the 2-year line and not needing the Corps verification. He also agrees with delaying implementation and not grandfathering projects. He also agrees 25’ is the minimum setback that should be considered. Gillette agrees with Kjesbo on using mapping for the high-water line and using the surveying method for appeals. Pratt brings up the setbacks for tributaries and would like to hear more discussion on that. He doesn’t want the Army Corps involved in appeals. He is in favor of setbacks and no-mow zone as long as we don’t impact too many people negatively. Kurz agrees on the 2-year line as well as on delaying the implementation but not for too long. He doesn’t want to look at the core areas any different than other areas as would defeat some of the purpose we’re trying to accomplish here. He says the discussion is benefitting the community. Perez is not convinced the OHW L is the right measurement. She is concerned about creating more non-conforming properties. She thinks the current system works fine and is clear. One of the board’s jobs is to make things clear, not more confusing. W e haven’t gotten to the other Takings concerns and if the proposal is clear it will be more easily enforceable. She is also in favor of the no-mow zone. Gillette says we need to give staff direction. Can we agree on delaying implementation to the end of the year? Kurz would prefer that was a shorter time. Bruno says we’ve waited 49 years to fix this, a few extra months won’t hurt. I t is the fair thing to do to not blindside people. This is a long-term plan and May 17, 2022 - Page 442 of 549 J anuary 1, 2023 is a fair date and gets us to our goal. Gillette is also in support of the High-Water Line, with an appeals process. Bruno likes the 2-year line but would like to see if the Army Corps can give a better timeframe on their process. Gillette asks if staff needs clarification on additional items. Wadden lists board comments: who is qualified to perform appeals using the OHW M as well as insurance of multi-family properties and the implications of non-conformity. Perez clarifies Phillips had a family event and had to leave. She says any determinations should include his feedback. Kurz suggests tabling for a month to give staff time for the requested information. Gillette asks for staff input. Wadden recommends returning at the next meeting. Karen Perez moved to table to February 14, 2022. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Phillips 4.I nformational Update 4.1.Update on the implementation of the West Vail Master Plan. 30 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Matt Gennett 5.Approval of Minutes 5.1.J anuary 10, 2022 P E C Results Perez has a correction to the minutes from J anuary 10th. She stated the memo wasn't included in the packet, not that should couldn't read the item in the packet.Ludwig Kurz moved to approve as amended.. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Phillips 6.Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 443 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N F ebruary 14, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w 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, J enn Bruno, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt Absent: None 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town Attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions regarding proposed code amendments. 15 min. 3.Main Agenda 3.1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 60 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Peter W adden, the Watershed Education Coordinator begins presentation. He reviews the changes made to the proposal since J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 444 of 549 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. I nsurance 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 (P E C) 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 445 of 549 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 P E C forwards. I t 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-W ater Mark (OHW M) and the Two Year Floodline (TY F L). 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 TY FL 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. W hen 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 TY F L. 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 446 of 549 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 TY FL. 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. W hat 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 P E C not staff would have the final review. Perez says she is uncomfortable that there are not currently criteria for the P E C review. W hat are their review criteria? Gillette brings up an example. I f 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 P E C. 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 447 of 549 methodology. Gillette asks what is a shapefile? Wadden says it is a GI S file that shows location of the lines in question. Spence says it allows staff to update the map layer. Gillette asks if the GI S 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. I n 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. W hy 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 448 of 549 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. W hat 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 449 of 549 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 W illow 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 J ohnson represents the Grand Hyatt Vail. He says last time there was a consensus to have the ordinance take effect J an. 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. I t’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. I f we’re flexible why are we concerned about changing the time outlined in the code for the May 17, 2022 - Page 450 of 549 restoration process. He references the Matterhorn I nn. 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. I t has been identified that the F E MA mapping is off vertically by 4’ on Middle Creek. Should there be a provision that deals with errors in the mapping of the TY FL? Gillette says those errors can be addressed through the appeals process. Spence says over time the layers will get better and better. D M 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. J on 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. I f 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 J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 451 of 549 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. I f we want to guarantee a win for the creek, the only way to do that is to start with this baseline. I f 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 P E C. Gillette says staff can verify applicants used the proper procedures. Phillips says the less restrictive measure is a treacherous road to go down.. W hy 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 P E C. The whole idea was to have a public process that allows property owners to make their case. I t’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. May 17, 2022 - Page 452 of 549 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 TY F L may be in the wrong area. I t 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 J anuary 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. May 17, 2022 - Page 453 of 549 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 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 I nterface to reduce the risk of wildfire and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0002) 30 min. 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. W hy 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. W ill a 250 square foot addition make a difference? Often it includes other things. W hat May 17, 2022 - Page 454 of 549 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. I gnition 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. I t’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 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. (P E C22- 0001) The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 14, 2022 P E C Meeting. 2 min. May 17, 2022 - Page 455 of 549 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 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 existing 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. (P E C21-0059) This item will be renoticed for a later date. 2 min. Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau Planner:J onathan Spence 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.J anuary 24, 2022 P E C 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 inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 456 of 549 May 17, 2022 - Page 457 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N F ebruary 28, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6F E0g After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2.Attendance 2.Executive Session 2.1.C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) - to have a conference with the Town 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 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces the item. Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. He gives a presentation recapping changes made since the last meeting based on feedback from the Planning and Environmental Commission (P E C) and public comment. He addresses proposed changes to the corrections process since the last meeting. I n the previous meeting, the P E C directed the change from an appeal process to a corrections process. The proposed corrections process will use the same methodology as original process using the Two-Year Flood Line. He outlines the proposed corrections process. He addresses public comment from One W illow Bridge. Wadden gives a diagram of the proposed ordinance and how cross-sections would work in the proposed corrections process. He contrasts this with previously proposed Army Corps Methodology which could create inconsistency in setbacks between neighboring properties. May 17, 2022 - Page 458 of 549 He talks about the Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy. Existing setbacks have not adequately protected Gore Creek. Perez thanks Staff for making changes. She finds the text amendment somewhat deficient. The effective date the P E C recommended is not in the text amendment, it should be in there. Kendra Carberry says it is in the actual ordinance in Section 8. Roy says it will be in the language of the ordinance before Town Council. Perez says we should add it in proposed recommendation. Make it clear to Town Council that that is in our recommendation. Gillette says the date was in the text in the code in another section. Roy clarifies those are used in a different manner. Perez addresses the two-year period for rebuilds. She is wondering about getting that language changed. Phillips says changing that language within the building department code would be problematic. Changing that could have considerable consequences within the building code. Gillette says it needs to be a separate process but done concurrently with this process. Perez is concerned that issue was not addressed on the agenda. The original charts showed the number of non-conforming structures but not units, so she is concerned about multi-family properties. The number of properties impacted is higher, do you have that number? Wadden says he has the number of structures. Perez says this wasn’t addressed by Town attorneys. W e need to know the numbers of other areas around town that will be impacted. Wadden says it’s difficult to parse out individual units within a multifamily development. W hen it redevelops, you’re not taking away the property rights of an individual property. Perez says that is not her concern. Her concern is the criteria under which the P E C is asked to make a recommendation. She cites Criteria #2 and #4. We have focused purely on the environmental issues, so she wants to balance the other considerations. The number of properties versus structures ties into development objectives and master plans. This is why she wants the numbers. This is not a personal concern this a community concern. Wadden cites the numbers regarding structures. Perez talks about structures with multiple units. The numbers are magnified in multi-unit buildings. She would like to know the numbers of individual properties impacted. She’s in favor of the no-mow zone and concept but feels like we don’t yet have a clear picture. May 17, 2022 - Page 459 of 549 Perez cites Section C-1-G, line. She cites the “or/and” language. Wadden says it should be and/or. Perez asks what is the intent? Can we get some clarity on this section? Wadden defers to attorneys on code language. Gillette says with duplexes or townhomes, this ordinance could impact some property owners on a lot but not all of them depending on the location. Wadden says when non-conformity comes into play when it is torn down and rebuilt the whole building is impacted. Perez asks what about cases of fire? W hat is the intent for language in C-1- G? Matt Mire thinks the language is and/or. I t was probably a typo. Perez asks which one is it? Mire assumes it is and/or but will clarify it. Perez says this a text amendment, so we have to nitpick the details. Gillette likes the idea that with the three cross-sections you can get rid of some of the anomalies that would otherwise occur. Do we know if the 2-year high water mark is correct? W ith the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW M) you’re not approximating it, you’re finding it in the field. W ith the floodlines we’re approximating the high-water mark. W hat we really want to do is start the setback from the actual edge of the creek. W hy don’t we look and see what’s there? Wadden says the 2-year floodline is not visible but is present and immutable. Gillette has asked surveyors who says the cross-sections can be more expensive than finding the high-water mark. You’re not gaining consistency moving from the high water mark to floodlines. Wadden says he does not agree with that point. Gillette questions how accurate the cross-sections would be as proposed. Wadden clarifies the minimum requirements in the proposed corrections process. Gillette talks about an anomaly at Mill Creek Circle. A situation like that could throw off a cross-section. Wadden says this could be addressed by taking more cross-sections. Kjesbo says you could take additional cross-sections to address those situations. Phillips says last time we agreed on the Two-Year Flood line (TY F L). The modeling is not arbitrary, it provides at least a baseline for the setback. May 17, 2022 - Page 460 of 549 Kjesbo says Staff wants one baseline not either or, then there is a consistent baseline. Gillette asks what if baseline is wrong? Perez says last time we asked for criteria for the corrections process. The current criteria are muddying the waters more. Phillips says the cross-section points are not arbitrary, they are at both property lines and the center. Wadden says staff discussed this point so that property owners could not cluster them where they want. The more data we have the better the model gets. The corrections we receive will also change the line for adjacent property owners. Perez says the property line for the structure is not the same as a unit. This is why we need more fine-tuning. Wadden says it’s shared property in the case of multi-family. Perez cites examples of areas she is concerned about. This effects the entire town, it’s a good start to the criteria but it’s still not finalized because it could be manipulated. Wadden says it is less easily manipulated than the OHW M. Gillette says the correction process will make the town modeling more precise. But if the TY F L is wrong, it’s not going to correct for that error. Wadden says it may not be precisely the bank in all cases. I t’s more important to have a clear baseline for the regulation. Gillette says the corrections process should address that by finding the bank in the field. Wadden says the intent is finding a clear and equitable baseline. Gillette asks what if it is giving you less of a setback? Wadden says the TY F L is more equitable because it doesn’t differ based on the width of the creek at that point. The TY FL will always be the same no matter who calculates it. Gillette asks how is there human error identifying the OHW M but not the TY FL? Wadden says there is subjectivity to the OHW M process. Different surveyors can find different results. Environmental Sustainability Director Kristen Bertuglia says staff has discussed some of these concerns. The TY FL is an actual elevation that exists. W hereas with the OHW M there is more subjectivity. The TY F L can’t be wrong, the more refined it is the better it is. Gillette wants whichever method protects the creek better. Now you’re May 17, 2022 - Page 461 of 549 saying your neighbor can change your lines based on their cross-sections. Wadden says corrections should refine the line and improve it. The TY FL is most susceptible to inaccuracy where it is farthest from a cross-section. More cross-sections will make the model more accurate. Phillips asks which process is more arbitrary. Wadden says the OHW M is more subjective. Phillips confirms that experts have said that the TY F L is the more consistent mark. Water flow can change the OHW M measurement. He wants a consistent baseline for citizens to look at. There is a corrections process if they find inconsistencies. Surveyors say year to year the OHW M is all over the place. Wadden says Staff shares that opinion and proposed the TY F L as a more objective baseline. Bruno agrees with Phillips. We have to look at science and what is most consistent and reliable. She appreciates that people have a chance to make corrections. We’re heading in the right direction; our creek needs us to act. Gillette clarifies that finding the OHW M is no longer in the proposed corrections process. Bertuglia says the corrections process now uses the same methodology as the TY F L, rather than using the OHW M which is more subjective. The proposed corrections process provides a way to correct it, but it’s not using either/or method. The OHW M line moves year to year so we would end up with checkerboard regulations. The variance process allows for people whose property has special circumstances. Gillette clarifies that the TY FL moves just as much as the OHW M year to year? Wadden says there is such imprecision in the OHW M process, the centerline moved by 50 feet between one application and the next. Gillette says there is human error in a cross-section. I t’s silly to say that one is more accurate than the other. Wadden says there could be error in both processes but that there is more in the OHW M methodology. Kurz cites section D-1-A, where the language is unclear. Wadden says “which” will be added. Gillette asks about the corrections process. Wadden says some individuals might have more wherewithal to go through corrections process with the OHW M as previously proposed. Kurz asks for public comment. Heather Houston says there is a lot of confusion between the TY FL and May 17, 2022 - Page 462 of 549 OHW M. The TY FL relies on a lot of assumptions, it’s not fair to say it’s more accurate than the OHW M. I t relies on specific topographic data and vegetation. There are a lot of inputs in the model that rely on assumptions. I t is estimating something that can be found in the field. The two sets of flagging that were presented make that method seem more imprecise than it actually is. She questions the assertion that the two studies show the OHW M is more imprecise. The differences are a few inches in most cases. The OHW M is not arbitrary, there is some interpretation but something within six inches of each other is a pretty good result. The 2-year floodline model depends on the accuracy of the inputs. The cross-sections are more expensive than a survey. Dick Parker references a memo he sent the P E C. He is a resident of Vail Rowhouses since 1975. He represents the owners on the west half who are in one building. His concern is that the proposed ordinance moves their building into non-compliance, after they just went through the process of the Vail Village Rezoning. W e’ve corrected one thing and we’ve moved to another. We haven’t discussed topography in this discussion. On our site, the aerial measurement is different than the linear measurement on grade. We all have the same interests in mind, but this regulation as proposed would put this building in non-compliance. He asks for consideration of the unintended consequences of regulations as written. Kurz says we only received your memo today. Parker asks are we going to regulate human activity of using the stream, which is a big factor. The city parks are mowed up to the stream. The big factor is consideration, he appreciates Ms. Perez’s comments. He is concerned about putting buildings into non-compliance. Perez asks that the memo from today is put into the record. Kjesbo asks about the concerns on non-conformity. Roy says you only need variance if you’re looking to expand the portion that is non-conforming. You do not need a variance to improve any other parts of the building. Kjesbo says you don’t need a variance unless you’re making the non- conformity worse. Perez asks about the example of redoing a patio. Roy says you could maintain a non-conforming patio. Gillette asks about a deck that is non-conforming, could you replace a rotted deck? Roy says removing and replacing it would require a variance. Perez is concerned that replacing a rotted deck for safety would require a variance. The language is lawfully existing, once you become non- conforming you’re no longer lawfully existing. Kjesbo says this point has to be clarified. Parker says in the past non-conforming comes to interpretation of the May 17, 2022 - Page 463 of 549 individual person working within the building department. Wadden addresses the property that Mr. Parker is referring to. Kjesbo says there must be a definition. You should be able to rebuild something for safety without needing a variance. Perez echoes that concern and cites the existing language. Mike Smith talks about One W illow Bridge. He talks about the mapping lines on this property. He understands that this could be a mapping issue and not the data itself. He appreciates Staffs’ consideration of this issue. He still has concerns; it’s not assured that the corrections process will address this issue. They are also concerned about the cross-sections process in this case. The variance process also does not provide comfort to property owners. Significant uncertainty remains. The map should be revised to remit the TY F L at 1 W illow Bridge. The 25’ setbacks will convert complying buildings to non-conformance and the 1 year timeframe should be extended from one to two years. Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of Evergreen Lodge. Last time the P E C said there needs to be a OHW M opportunity for people to question the TY FL. That is no longer in the proposed ordinance, there is no longer a provision for the OHW M. The OHW M does not change year to year. The surveyors he talked to have been comfortable using the Army Corps methodology. The corrections process is not as simple as represented. He cites examples of variable data from past meeting. He says property lines aren’t smooth and it’s hard to have a smooth line between those. Relying on an engineered model is what’s causing the inconsistencies rather than going out and measuring it in the field. W hat is the new lidar data that’s coming? He appreciates that the effective date is not until the end of the year, does that give more time to consider the new lidar data and take some OHW M measurements? Kurz asks for commissioner comments. Phillips agrees with Gillette and Perez regarding the corrections process. Surveyors are not agreeing on this issue across the valley. Perhaps the OHW M could be in the corrections process rather than the latest proposed method. He wants to find a baseline; we can’t keep kicking the can down the road. W e need to seize the moment, and try to find some continuity with a baseline that still provides the owners an option. I f you live on the river you probably have the resources to go through the corrections process. W e’ve sacrificed this creek too long. Gillette says going back to the OHW M in the corrections process solves a lot of these issues. I t’s a simple process that would happen anyways. He is curious whether the Army Corps methodology eliminates problem with man- made drainages. The concerns about clarifying what can be rebuilt is important. W e need more definition before this ordinance goes into effect. He agrees with Perez that we need to see progress on this before we forward a recommendation. I t will have ramifications on day one of the effective date. Kjesbo says this will put more properties into non-conformance and we have to have a remedy. I f something isn’t safe the owners need a way to rebuild. He understands Staff’s desire for consistency in the regulation. Maybe we May 17, 2022 - Page 464 of 549 should look at things this summer now that we’ve settled on an effective date. He agrees with Perez, how does the number of individual structures impact individual units? Gillette asks if each individual owner on the creek was notified? Wadden says in the case of HOAs, they were sent to HOAs. Gillette asks if we should notify every single owner. Pratt says being on the other side, it’s easier to notify the HOAs. Perez says there’s no one size fits all but has concerns that about the notification. Bellm says we can’t email, the county provides addresses not emails. Perez asks about other outreach efforts. Spence says notice requirements are legal requirements that are part of the town code. They are required by law, not subject to review by the P E C. Staff will continue to do this until directed otherwise by Town Council. Pratt is concerned one size doesn’t fit all. Everyone in this process has had an example of a non-conformity. I t bothers him that they are going down that road. W e all agree on the 10’ no-mow zone, why not pass a recommendation to Town Council to enact that now. Then we could take time on the setback issue. I f 25’ is good for Gore Creek, it seems excessive for the tributaries, 20’ could be good for those. He agrees the OHW M should be part of the corrections process and also understands Staff’s desire for a consistent baseline. Bruno leaves the meeting. Perez agrees there haven’t been concerns about the no-mow zone. She says the environmental concerns are important, but we need to look at the units affected by non-conformity. She also wants to address the non- conforming time period concurrently, as well as the language for rebuilds. She knows the code section is complex and appreciates Staff’s efforts. She says artificial drainageways should be an exclusion to the setback. She thanks staff for the hard work, let’s take the time that it needs to get it right. Kurz says the P E C has shown respect for both the public and the process, as well as property owners. By delaying implementation, the P E C has shown concern for the issue. He had hoped for a conclusion before some Commission members terms run out. He is concerned about kicking the can, we potentially weaken the outcome of what we want to do. Because of the input in the process, we’ve come a long way in getting to the right place, even if we’re not quite there yet. He commends Staff and Wadden during this process. Eventually this will be a star in the cap of this community. He asks for a tabling so that comments from today can be incorporated moving today. Gillette asks about the date for term limits. Bellm says end of March. May 17, 2022 - Page 465 of 549 Pratt asks if it’s possible to split the 10’ mow-zone from this and get that approved. Roy says we can’t discuss an ongoing application with Town Council unless we get a recommendation today. Perez reminds Wadden about the language changes in C-1-G, D-1-A. Roy says Staff is asking for a vote not a tabling today. Gillette doesn’t think that is appropriate. W e’re supposed to vet legislation, we shouldn’t vote until that is complete. The comments from the P E C need to be submitted to the Council. Perez says if you want an up or down vote today, it won’t be a good vote. Roy says the P E C comments would be included in report to Council. Gillette says not all of the P E C’s concerns from last meeting were included in the latest proposal. Perez says the proposal is still unclear, we’re not there yet and would like to see this through to completion. Perez moves to table. Gillette seconds. Kurz asks for further discussion of the motion. Wadden says he won’t interrupt the process. I f this commission wants to table, he won’t interrupt. Pratt says it cannot be discussed with Council until the P E C votes. Phillips would like Council to know where the process is, we’re close to finishing this up. Bellm says Council will get the minutes from this meeting. Spence says staff will provide Council with an update. W e won’t discuss the specifics but will make them aware of the status of the application. He clarifies that Staff can’t look for direction from them out of order. The minutes will also be available to them. Gillette clarifies does the creek have gold medal trout status. Wadden says gold medal status is present from Red Sandstone Creek to Eagle River. C D P HE status is not there on the whole creek. Phillips says Gold Medal status was lost on the upper creek in the mid- eighties. 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.February 14, 2022 P E C Results Perez has a clarification on page two that she asked for the number of units May 17, 2022 - Page 466 of 549 5.I nformational Update 5.1.Aquatic Entomologist, Dave Rees, will provide an update on macro invertebrate populations in Gore Creek as surveyed in September 2020. 40 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Pete W adden 6.Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily February 25, 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 467 of 549 P L ANNI NG AND E NV I RO NM E NTAL C O M M IS S IO N M arch 14, 2022, 1:00 P M Town Council Chambers and Virtual on Zoom 75 S . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1.Call to Order 1.1.Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/W N_tX L0eRs9QKieoSkwg888J w 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, Henry Pratt, Reid Phillips Absent:J enn Bruno 2.Site Visits 2.1.Four Seasons 3.Main Agenda 3.1.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 existing 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. (P E C21-0059) 60 min. Applicant:Four Seasons Resort, represented by Andrew Sellnau Planner:J onathan Spence Planner Spence introduces the project and gives a short verbal introduction on what is included in the staff report. He goes over how since the 2017, when an S D D was last amended, there was only some buildout of what was approved at that time. The floor plans submitted with that amendment were not followed and other units were converted instead of the approved units. The applicant is proposing to amend the unit mix and move Employee Housing Units (E HU) off-site and out of town. The applicants are looking for a decision today, but staff is recommending this item be continued to a future meeting to allow for revision and a holistic approach to the E HU replacement. Perez wants to know why these units are underutilized. I f we allow these units to move out of town how does the Town enforce the deed restrictions? May 17, 2022 - Page 468 of 549 Spence answers that deed restrictions and housing plans are usually very specific and include a specific unit in question but due to the size of the request that is not available at this time. Perez says she will wait until after the presentation to ask more questions. Kurz compliments the narrative and says he still has concerns to be brought up. Andrew Sellnau asks that Gary Barnett starts the presentation off. Gary Barnett goes over how they came to own the property, the improvements they made, and how it is now one of the finest hotels in Vail. One of the lingering issues they have not tackled is the E HUs on the site and how they have been underutilized. Employees come with families or pets and do not want to go in double occupancy rooms. They believe the units would be better utilized as hotel rooms and housing would be better for employees outside of town. They believe they’ve worked well with the town and would like approval as they are getting close to construction season. Sellnau starts off with the history of the S D D in 2001 and as amended in ’03, ’05, and ’17. The E HUs were conceived and built to house 56 employees. They have not seen dorm rooms used in other areas of town. Town code currently has a minimum of 200S F per employee, these dorm rooms are 166S F per person and don’t meet the current code as it was changed after their original approval. The dorms don’t have kitchens, so employees have to cook in the microwave, or they can use the on-site employee cafeteria for their meals. Three meals are provided daily. The dorms have J ack/J ill bathrooms between units, so they service four employees per bathroom. Pre-covid and post-covid the dorm rooms are used and desired by J -1 program employees but have not been found to be desired by those that come with families or pets. These units are useful for visa employees throughout the year, so we plan to keep half of them on-site. The dorms will house about 12% of the employees who are more transient than the majority of employees. W here these units are not useful is for year-round and long- term employees. Looking at options for how to repurpose them the best way to develop them is into hotel rooms. I f they were to be repurposed into alternative employee units, they would significantly restrict in unit configuration and number of replacements. The price has been maintained at $600/mo per employee and that amount has not changed over the years. Sellnau goes over the chart of the utilization. They have never been able to meet the requirement of having a full 56 employee occupying the units. They would like to see the utilization at 100% but are significantly short of that. They would like to achieve three things, come up with a solution of unit utilization, change the unit mix of the hotel, and find units off-site to meet their employee housing requirement. They’ve met with the V LHA on three occasions and made amendments to the plan accordingly. They’ve looked at this over the last five years as the units have not been fully occupied and believe that Vail has changed over the time since these units were built. That at one point Vail was very seasonal and hotels could run off of seasonal employees, but now that Vail is May 17, 2022 - Page 469 of 549 more year-round, a need for year-round employees and housing for them, has emerged. The proposal that has gone through three iterations. First was replacing the 16 units on site with 16 bedrooms offsite, from Vail all the way to Edwards through master leases on those bedrooms. The feedback was that master leases was not a good idea and difficult to ensure that was provided on a consistent basis. The second proposal was to replace 16 units with 16 deed restricted bedrooms. The V LHA said that the replacement should be based on employees not bedrooms. Now the latest, and current, iteration is to replace 32 employees with 32 employees based on the bedroom equivalency chart in town code. To abide by this chart the change from dorm rooms to bedrooms would come with an increase in square footage. Sellnau goes over how town code has changed since these units were originally developed and currently how larger square footage is required. I n addition to looking at replacing these in the Town Four Seasons needs to look outside of the town in order to make this successful. They believe it would be a significant challenge to find this amount of deed restrictions within Town limits. Numbers from the Vail I ndeed program are given in relation to the success of the program. The applicant believes Vail Health struggled with this and thus paid a fee in lieu. They relate to recent Town ballots and Council questions about whether money or units could be used or found outside of Town. Four Seasons is not proposing to remove all the units outside of town, just 16 out of 28. The other 12 would remain in the building. They plan to ask employees if they could purchase deed restrictions on the homes that the employees currently own. They could also try to provide a down payment assistance to employees that are currently renting so that they could move into a home that would then be deed restricted. I f units were still needed, they would then go to outside owners to purchase a deed-restriction and, hopefully, getting a master lease on those units if they came up for rent. Approximately 70% of their employees live outside of Vail and in order to get deed restrictions on their homes Four Seasons would need to be able to provide deed restrictions outside of Vail. Limiting it to the Town of Vail would be unworkable and would not solve the underlying issue that is faced. They would like to find a solution immediately. The proposal is that up-to 32 employees would be able to be provided off-site. Sellnau gives examples of how the numbers would work on a rolling basis. As units are provided off-site the on-site equivalency would be able to be remodeled into accommodation units. The purpose of doing it through an S D D process is because they are in an S D D and must do so. I t also allows for some leniency through the S D D process, and their proposal can be flexible. Goes over some of the criteria for an S D D amendment and how the proposal is meeting the stated criteria. Allowing them to go off-site would be a chance to preserve units in the valley for employees rather than short term rentals. They are unaware of other properties that have attempted to move this many units off-site and the challenges that provides. For that reason, using the deed-restriction program that requires a multiplier should not be applicable in this situation. More criteria are gone through and how this proposal is meeting them. Going from unoccupied and underutilized dorm rooms to new deed restricted housing will not increase foot or vehicle traffic. I f the units were occupied it would be increasing traffic, but as they were empty, it would not actually increase the traffic from how it exists today. May 17, 2022 - Page 470 of 549 A slide is shown on the “summary and benefits” of the proposal. The net effect of this is that the square footage will increase and the misconception of how employees will be housed in the 2020s will be corrected. Applicant presentation is over. Perez found the presentation was disturbing as they have been checking the box that they were meeting the deed restriction when the units were sitting vacant for more than three months, which is the maximum allowed in Town Code. W hy did they wait so long to come to the Town to fix the situation if it has been going on for five years? Sellnau says that they were preoccupied with fixing the interior issues to the hotel and to fix the other units to get ready to sell them and fix the unit mix from hotel keys to produce occupancy. They also thought perhaps that the underutilization was due to the lack of business at the hotel. But saw as business picked up the occupancy of the E HUs did not follow suit. Perez asks why not reconfigure the existing on-site E HUS. Perez is concerned with decreasing onsite and in the building housing. Have you used “best efforts” instead of what you said you did, which is that a “reasonable” effort was made? Sellnau said it is impossible to reconfigure the E HUs without significant reduction in hotel rooms. Perez says you’re essentially asking for a variance. One of the things you’re looking at is providing housing for families. Your units now would provide housing for two employees and you’ll be going to one with a family and be housing less of your employees. I t makes Perez uncomfortable that the Town would not have jurisdiction to require these deed restrictions to be followed. We would like you to go back and develop a more comprehensive plan that says we’ve approached employees and have solutions compared to just ideas of how this will be accomplished. The proposal is not sufficiently definite to show that you are able to meet the requirements. Barnett says that they would only end up with 3 or 4 units that would work with reconfiguration of the existing units. W e still have on-site housing, but it would be a shame to not increase the value or utilization of the units by changing them. Perez says the housing crisis isn’t new and that this should be an “and” solution and not an “either/or”. Saying we aren’t adding car trips because they are underutilized isn’t an argument because the existing units should currently be utilized. Pratt asks if the S D D requirement is based on beds, units, or square footage? Spence says it mixed over time, it was based on square footage and beds with previous code language but was always an employee requirement in essence. The difference was how it was calculated. The choice to go from dorm to a larger unit with multiple bedrooms adds square footage per the table but is not above and beyond the requirement. Staff watched the V LHA meeting, and the V L HA said they would come back with a written recommendation, but that was not presented or approved at subsequent May 17, 2022 - Page 471 of 549 meetings. Pratt asks if the E HUS turned to A Us would be accessed by the existing balcony or from inside the hotel. Sellnau states that they would be accessed from the inside. Pratt, if the original requirement was based on square footage, and you remodeled to different units, but kept the same square footage, that he would be in favor of that approach. Sellnau, believes that is not how the S D D reads, and that they have to provide 28 type 3 E HUs and have to provide housing for 56 employees. The square footage amount was removed in 2003 and switched to employees. Pratt would be in favor of keeping the same square footage and just mixing the type of units provided. Sellnau seems to think there would be a significant requirement still left over. Perez adds that it would be an “and” solution and would be in addition to other units. Barnett asks whether that would be the best use or not. Perez adds that having fewer units occupied would be an improvement from where you said you are today. Barnett said that the costs could be too much for the benefit received. The remodel would cost too much for too little gain. Pratt asks about the multiplier for an E HU conversion as mentioned in the staff report. Spence adds that the deed restriction exchange program is there for the review of relocating existing E HUS to different location. He explains the idea of core area housing, core to core movement of E HUs is mitigated at a square foot ratio of 2:1, core to outside core is a ratio of 3:1 that must be provided. Kjesbo asks that when an application is proposing a major amendment to an S D D do they have to come into compliance with current code? Spence states that the current code is the barometer we use to review applications and make recommendations. Kjesbo, so the dorm units today wouldn’t meet the requirement today? Spence, correct. Kjesbo was on P E C in ’03 and’05. The benefits when P E C approved the Four Seasons S D D was the housing on site. Now the proposal is to move 57% as far down valley as Edwards. The rules have changed, and the adjustments needs to meet code. Highline was just approved with dorm rooms and if we approve this, they could come in with an application to do the same thing and move their required housing down valley. W e approved 5000sf of housing on site and that was the major benefit of the S D D. May 17, 2022 - Page 472 of 549 Kurz was in this same chair 20 years ago when this was approved. He remembers how after serious negotiations the town was all happy with the results. I t put employees in the middle of town with no need for cars and was self-sustained. They thought this would make a huge impact and he believes it did. W e applaud you on sticking with those negotiations, but now we are turning this around by having people live as far away as Edwards. By moving more people down valley there is a direct impact with parking and transportation. I understand the upgrade of the units is important, but the proposed cost would be significant. He looked at the schedules and it could have been a management issue as to why employees didn’t stay in the units. There could have been things done different to allow them to stay. Offsite as far as Edwards is not in the best interest of the community. He agrees that Vail has changed. Pratt asks about some of the A Us going to D Us and how the proposal states that they will be in the rental program, are they required to be? Sellnau responds that they are not required to be. Out of the 12 D Us from last time that were converted they have 11 that are still in the rental program. More guests are looking to stay in condos or homes similar to Airbnb and V RB O. They find that guests still like the amenities of the hotel mixed with those more livable units. The concern that the condos would be sitting there empty has not been realized. Pratt says how they alluded to Vail Health used the pay in lieu, and that should be an option here as well. Agrees that the remodel of the on-site units would be best. Phillips says how you’ve made no accommodation for employee parking on site. Sellnau employees either carpool or use public transportation. Phillips asks if employee parking is provided on site? Sellnau says there is no parking dedicated to employees on site. Phillips says that this proposal is basically to create an E HU pathway for some of your employees with houses down valley to restrict them as E HUS, correct? Sellnau says yes, they live there today but they could sell to someone else or create a V RB O tomorrow and it would no longer be employee housing. Perez, the proposal is basically to utilize what is already there, not adding the housing stock. Sellnau says that’s true, but no guarantee that those non-deed restricted homes will not be sold to someone who is not an employee. W e see tremendous turnover and people cycle from hotel to hotel and place to place. We see a fair amount of turnover year in and year out and if they relocate, they’ll sell their home. Pratt, they could sell the deed restricted housing to people that work someone else, and that housing is gone for the Four Season and possibly the town. May 17, 2022 - Page 473 of 549 Sellnau whoever lives there would have to work in the town. Perez it doesn’t meet the Four Season obligation then. These units are for Four Seasons employees. Barnett, we intend to provide that housing to put less burden on the housing base in the Town of Vail. Pratt corrects the record that there was a housing problem 44 years ago, not just 20. Kjesbo concurs. Kurz asks how likely that inventory is available for deed restrictions? As a further example of another option Spence says you can buy a deed restriction or you can buy a house, put a deed restriction on it and hold the house as a financial asset and use it for employee housing. Barnett asks if anyone looked at what it costs to buy in Vail lately. Sellnau, said they could do that in the proposal as it is stated today. Perez says it would be more palatable. Barnett says it would be difficult to do except outside of Vail. Public comment is opened and closed with no public comment. Pratt clarifies that the motion is based on what was presented today. Karen Perez moved to send a recommendation of denial. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain:(1)Gillette Absent:(1)Bruno 3.2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 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 W aterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C21-0043) 45 min. Applicant:Town of Vail, represented by Pete W adden Planner:Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces the item and summarizes the changes from the previous meeting. Peter W adden is the Watershed Education Coordinator. Wadden summarizes the changes made from the last meeting. He talks about the objectives of the stream corridor protection ordinance. He talks about the proposed corrections process. He talks about the policy in the Gore Creek Strategic Plan. He talks about the number of non-conforming buildings and acres protected under various scenarios. He talks about why staff recommends a 25’ setback. May 17, 2022 - Page 474 of 549 Pratt asks about the corrections process. I s there a vehicle for the Town to challenge a surveyor ’s word? Wadden says at previous meetings the P E C had indicated that they did not want staff making qualitative reviews. Pratt notes that half of the increased acreage is on the tributaries. He would not have expected that. Kjesbo asks about a 20’ setback on tributaries. I t would take a lot of units out of non-conformity. A 25’ setback on tributaries adds many more units into non-conformity. Wadden says it is a large number of units but a small number of structures. Roy says they are most likely multifamily structures which couldn’t develop individually. Kjesbo says an individual owner can get permission to renovate their unit if their HOA agrees. Phillips thanks staff. The scientific recommendation is a 25’ minimum setback, we’re at the lowest threshold compared to other resort towns in the west. 20’ on tributaries might be a palatable compromise. Given the corrections process, it is a stamped surveyor that must provide that information. The town could invalidate it if that requirement is not met. Some people will keep hiring surveyors until they get the right result. He would like a provision for peer review of a surveyor ’s result. Gillette thinks that might be available already. Staff already reviews applications for compliance, he doesn’t think this is different. Wadden says in the larger code there is a mechanism for staff to challenge submitted surveys. Phillips is content as long as we have a backstop for these concerns. Pratt wants to protect public interests as well as private. Gillette clarifies the difference in non-conforming structures with 20’ versus 25’ setback. Pratt says W adden has done an outstanding job with this. He hasn’t previously seen a controversial application handled this well. Perez agrees. C-1-G, C-2-B, “lawfully existing” language. She still has concerns about the term “lawfully existing” in the proposed language, as well as the timeframe allowed to rebuild non-conforming structures. Roy says the proposed language is lawfully established. Perez asks about the recommended revision on 12-18-9? Roy says that it’s in the memo to Town Council. Perez says the P E C recommendation was these be presented simultaneously. May 17, 2022 - Page 475 of 549 Roy says we will bring this to Town Council. Perez asks if this is in the memo? Roy says it was attached to it. Pratt wants a strong recommendation to Council that they evaluate the one- year timeframe to rebuild in 12-18-9. Gillette says the language in the existing code is inadequate in describing what is allowed in setbacks. He thinks an amendment to that section of the code should be made. Roy clarifies the sections in Title 14 regarding setbacks that address these issues. Dick Parker is a resident of the Vail rowhouses. He thinks Wadden has done a good job with the presentation. He has one point of concern left. The proposal is talking about an aerial view and not topography. He asks for a corrections provision if the aerial view differs from the linear measurement and puts a building in non-compliance. Pratt asks about the science of aerial view versus linear measurement. Wadden says if we allow choice between these, applications could take the measurement which would reduce the area protected by this ordinance. Roy says setbacks look at a site plan view and not topography. I t would be inconsistent with the rest of the town code to do so. Gillette says the 10’ no mow zone will be better on a flat parcel versus steep. Wayne Forman speaks on behalf of the One W illow Bridge Road HOA. They would like to see that it’s not the intent of setbacks to be drawn from artificial discharges, just to make that clear. He asks about the language in D-1 regarding the owner. Kelli Rohrig owns a landscaping business in the valley. She says we need to protect our waterways. She has seen the degradation to the creek as a result of landscaping practices in the last two years. The setback will help this issue, she agrees with the proposed ordinance. Pratt asks about the code’s definition of property owner. Roy says someone representing the property owners can act in this regard. Kjesbo says the health of Gore Creek is the most important factor. He would like Council to know the comment that it would be putting more units into non-compliance. But the protection of the creek is ultimately the most important thing. Kurz says we have been working to produce a perfect ordinance, which is impossible. W hat we have today gets the closest we can to that, it balances various interests and protects the waterways. Motion of approval with the comments from the P E C. The first is that the May 17, 2022 - Page 476 of 549 timeframe to rebuild a non-conforming structure in the event of calamity be extended from one year to two years. The second is that the proposed language “lawfully existing” be changed to “lawfully established”. They also recommend being able to replace non-conforming structures in the event of a safety issue. Pratt says council should also be made aware of the number of non- conformities created. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommendation of approval. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 3.3.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 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. (P E C22- 0001) 20 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 3.4.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 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0003) 2 min. The applicant requests this item be tabled to the March 28, 2022 meeting. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:J onathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to April 11, 2022. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1.February 28, 2022 P E C Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve as presented. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent:(1)Bruno 5.Adjournment May 17, 2022 - Page 477 of 549 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily March 11, 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 478 of 549 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Vail Town Council May 17, 2022 970.479.2144 | lovevail.org Pete Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator pwadden@vailgov.com May 17, 2022 - Page 479 of 549 Gore Creek Strategic Plan Goals Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Because these impairments are not attributed to a single pollutant through extensive research by many entities, actions target the three known causes of degradation: 1.Pollutants from land use activities 2.Drainage from impervious surfaces 3.The loss of riparian and streamside vegetation, reducing the natural ability of these areas to protect Gore Creek from effects of land use activities and urban runoff” May 17, 2022 - Page 480 of 549 Gore Creek Strategic Plan Policy Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. To that end the plan recommends Town of Vail: •“Update stream setback, riparian zone, vegetative buffer zone and other water quality definitions and maps” May 17, 2022 - Page 481 of 549 Selected building setbacks from around Colorado Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Jurisdiction Stream setback Glenwood Springs 35 feet from bank Eagle County 75 feet from high water line Pitkin County 100 feet from bank Aspen Additional review within 100 feet of bank Fort Collins Minimum 50 feet from bank Steamboat Springs 100 feet from bank Estes Park Minimum 50 feet from bank Colbran 100 feet from bank Summit County 25 feet from bankMay 17, 2022 - Page 482 of 549 Existing centerline based setbacks Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. •50 feet on Gore Creek •30 feet on tributaries May 17, 2022 - Page 483 of 549 Effective regulation needs an established baseline Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Two Year Flood Line= FEMA methodology •Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain •Location determined by town provided data (Lidar and field-verified elevation data) •Surveyor uses elevation data to find the line in the field •Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it May 17, 2022 - Page 484 of 549 Change to Building Setback Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Setback Scenario Number of acres protected from development* Existing 26.27 25 feet from TYFL 30.83 30 Feet from TYFL 36.72 *Acreage dependent on staff recommended corrections process May 17, 2022 - Page 485 of 549 Corrections process-Forwarded from PEC 1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected 2.Property owner hires qualified professional to delineate OHWM using Army Corps methodology 3.Property owner submits correction request including: •Delineation stamped by state licensed surveyor •Photos of cross of flags or other markers used to delineate OHWM 4.Community Development Director will review and approve application a.If submittal criteria are met, basis for setbacks on that property will move to OHWM 5.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance process applies as in every other setbackMay 17, 2022 - Page 486 of 549 Staff recommends clarity and continuity in corrections copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Clear, consistent, objective baseline •Goal of TYFL = establish a baseline for regulation that approximates the stream bank •Goal of the Corrections Process = Allow property owners to refine modeling and/or mapping discrepancies Corrections process should use same methodology –Why? •Equity •Consistency of regulation •Consistency of measurement •Ability to update maps according to corrections •As more granular data are available, if a property owner submitted a correction=improved accuracy of overall data set May 17, 2022 - Page 487 of 549 Corrections process-Staff Recommendation 1.Property owner wishes to have TYFL corrected 2.Property owner hires surveyor to survey a minimum of three cross sections on property 3.Cross sections are used by an engineer to model 2-year flood elevation 4.Property owner submits correction request including: •Stamped letter from engineer stating 2-year flood elevation •Photos of cross sections •Lat/long or UTM locations of cross sections •GIS shapefile delineating location of 2-year flood line 5.Community Development Director will review and approve application a.If submittal criteria are met, line will be moved and recorded in town’s data set 6.Should property owner feel they have a hardship –variance process applies as in every other setback May 17, 2022 - Page 488 of 549 Corrections process-Staff Recommendation Corrections: 1. b. The survey shall include at least 3 cross sections, perpendicular to the flow of the stream, in the same vertical and horizontal datum as that referenced in the Town's data set, extending from beyond the 100 year flood line on one bank to beyond the 100 year flood line on the opposite bank and including all stream channels. The 3 cross sections shall be taken at each property boundary and the center of the property. copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 489 of 549 Cross Sections copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 490 of 549 Cross sections copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 491 of 549 Cross sections and LIDAR data to model stream channel copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 492 of 549 Corrections process should be consistent, objective Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. OHWM= Army Corps Methodology •Requires surveyor to look for changes in vegetation, cut banks and erosive marks •Corrections process would be a change in methodology from baseline •May not achieve goal of increasing acreage protected from development along waterways •Subjective-two qualified experts have been shown to delineate different lines on the same stream TYFL= FEMA methodology •Same process used to model FEMA 100 year floodplain •Corrections process introduces new data of the same type •Objective-Line in the field will be consistent no matter who surveys it May 17, 2022 - Page 493 of 549 OHWM is not consistent or unbiased Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 494 of 549 OHWM is not consistent or unbiased Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 495 of 549 OHWM is not consistent or unbiased Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 496 of 549 A Creek is more than water in a channel Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. It is a living, ever- changing ecosystem. If Vail wants a healthy creek, the community needs to give it some space. May 17, 2022 - Page 497 of 549 Does Town Council wish to adopt Ordinance Number 6 Series of 2022 into the Vail Town Code? Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. May 17, 2022 - Page 498 of 549 Lovevail.org Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Little intro copy area. Pete Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator pwadden@vailgov.com May 17, 2022 - Page 499 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 8, S eries of 2022, an Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Vail Town Code and Adopting by Reference the 2021 E ditions of the I nternational B uilding Code, I nternational Residential Code, I nternational F ire Code, I nternational E nergy Conservation Code, I nternational Plumbing Code, I nternational Fuel Gas Code, I nternational Mechanical Code, I nternational E xisting B uilding Code, and the 2020 Edition of the National electrical Code, with Amendments; and A dopting the 1997Edition of the Uniform Code for the A batement of Dangerous Buildings, with Amendments. P RE S E NT E R(S ): C J J arecki, Chief Building Official AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance Number 8, Series of 2022. B AC K G RO UND: The building codes are updated on a three-year cycle after an extensive, 3- step code development process in which all interested and affected parties may participate. T his allows for the codes to stay current with continually changing laws, practices and technology that affect the construction industry. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove Ordinance Number 8, Series of 2022 as submitted. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memorandum Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 500 of 549 Town of Vail Page 1 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department Vail Fire & Emergency Services Building & Fire Code Appeals Board DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Second reading, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2022: An ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Vail Town Code, effectively adopting the most recent editions of the building and fire codes, as amended. I. SUMMARY The Community Development Department, Vail Fire & Emergency Services and the Building & Fire Code Appeals Board are proposing to repeal and reenact Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Vail Town Code as described within Ordinance 8, Series of 2022. This action will effectively adopt the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Fire Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Existing Building Code, the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code, the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and their associated amendments. II. BACKGROUND The building codes are updated on a three-year cycle after an extensive, three-step code development process in which all interested and affected parties may participate. This allows for the codes to stay current with continually changing laws, practices and technology that affect the construction industry. The Building & Fire Code Appeals Board, in concert with numerous staff members and stakeholders, have revised amendments within the Town’s current code that are out of date with current technology, to better align with this Council’s vision for the future of the community, and to maintain compliance with State of Colorado Requirements. Also, provisions that address construction practices that are unique to our mountain community have been added. A total of thirteen (13) public hearings were utilized to develop the proposed Ordinance May 17, 2022 - Page 501 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 and the Building & Fire Code Appeals Board are unanimously recommending approval. III. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2022, upon second reading. IV. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Staff has revised the Ordinance to reflect input received from Council during first reading and is requesting that Council approves Ordinance 8, Series of 2022, upon second reading, as revised. If approved, the effective adoption date of the Ordinance shall be July 5, 2022. This will allow for a minimum of two code-update training session for members of the building and construction community prior to implementation. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2022, as revised May 17, 2022 - Page 502 of 549 1 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 8 SERIES OF 2022 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2021 EDITIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE, INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE AND THE 2020 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS; AND ADOPTING THE 1997 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, WITH AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the 2021 editions of the International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Fire Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Existing Building Code; and the 2020 Edition of the National Electrical Code; and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings have been published; WHEREAS, the adoption and use of the 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code is required by the State of Colorado; WHEREAS, the 2018 International Codes currently adopted by the Town of Vail lack the updates contained within in the 2021 International Codes that address modern construction means, methods, safety improvements, and code clarity; and WHEREAS, the Town's Building and Fire Code Appeals Board has recommended adoption of the codes as set forth in this ordinance. 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 repealed in its entirety and reenacted to read as follows: 10-1-1: CODES ADOPTED BY REFERENCE: The following codes are hereby adopted by reference, as amended. Copies shall be available for inspection at the office of the Town Clerk during regular business hours and can be viewed online at www.iccsafe.org and www.vailgov.com: A. The International Building Code, 2021 edition, including Appendices B, E, G, J, K, and O published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. May 17, 2022 - Page 503 of 549 2 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX B. Chapters 1-10 of The International Residential Code, 2021 edition, including Appendices AF, AJ and AV, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. C. The International Fire Code, 2021 edition, including Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and N published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. D. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2021 edition, including Appendices CA and RA, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. E. The International Plumbing Code, 2021 edition, including Appendices C and F, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. F. The International Fuel Gas Code, 2021 edition, including Appendix E, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. G. The International Mechanical Code, 2021 edition, including Appendix C, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. H. The International Existing Building Code, 2021 edition, including Appendix D, published by the International Code Council, 4051 Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478-5975. I. NFPA 70 - The National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, Inc., 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. J. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-2298. 10-1-2: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Building Code, 2021 Edition: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Building Code. Section 101.4 is amended to read as follows: 101.4 Referenced codes. The codes specified in Sections 101.4.1-101.4.7 and referenced elsewhere in this code shall not be considered a part of this code unless specifically adopted. Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.1 Creation of agency. The Town's Building Department is hereby created and the official in charge shall be known as the building official. The May 17, 2022 - Page 504 of 549 3 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX function of this agency shall be the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this code. Section 105.2, item 14 of the Building portion, is amended to read as follows: 14. Decks not exceeding 200 sq/ft (18.6 m2) in area, not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point and are not part of a means of egress or accessible route. Section 110.3.10 is amended to read as follows: 110.3.10 Other Inspections. In addition to the inspections specified in Sections 110.3.1-110.3.9, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with this code and any other Town code, standard, requirement or regulation. Section 202 is amended by the addition of the following definitions: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure used to shelter or support any material, equipment, chattel or occupancy other than a habitable building. FIRE CHIEF. The Vail Fire Chief or designee. FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION. The use of materials and systems in the design and construction of a structure to safeguard against the spread of fire within a structure and the spread of fire to or from structures to the wildland-urban interface area. IGNITION-RESISTANT BUILDING MATERIAL. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently 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. As described in Section 7A06, the 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. A building construction material that, in the form in which it is used, is either: 1. Material of which no part will ignite and burn when subjected to fire (any material conforming to ASTM E136 shall be considered noncombustible); or May 17, 2022 - Page 505 of 549 4 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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. "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 conform to item 1 above. 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. SAFETY COVER. A structure, fabric or assembly, along with attendant appurtenances and anchoring mechanisms, that is temporarily placed or installed over an entire pool, spa or hot tub and secured in place after all bathers are absent from the water. 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, as depicted and defined in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, where structures and other human development meets or intermingles with wildland or vegetative fuels. CHAPTER 7A is added as follows: CHAPTER 7A FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION 7A01 GENERAL 7A01.1 Scope. This Chapter shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, repair, maintenance and use of any building, structure, or premises into or within the wildland-urban interface areas of the Town. Exceptions: 1. Repair or replacement of less than 25% of a deck surface or structure. 2. Repair or replacement of less than 25% of the exterior siding of a structure. 3. Accessory structures not exceeding 120 sq/ft 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. 7A01.2 Objectives. Because the unrestricted use of property in wildland- urban interface areas is a potential threat to life and property from fire and resulting erosion, the objectives of this Chapter are to establish minimum May 17, 2022 - Page 506 of 549 5 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practice for the safeguarding of life and for property protection, and 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. These regulations are intended to be tiered commensurate with the relative level of hazard present. This Chapter supplements the Town's codes to provide for special regulations to mitigate fire and life-safety hazards in 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 the requirements of this chapter; provided that the addition or alteration conforms to that required for a new building or structure. 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 structure or condition existing on the date of adoption of this Chapter shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically governed by the International Fire Code. 7A03 COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVES 7A03.1 Practical difficulties. Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out provisions of this Chapter, the building official or fire chief are authorized to grant modifications for individual cases upon application, in writing, by the owner or owner’s authorized agent. The building official or fire chief shall first find that a special individual reason makes enforcement 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. 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 building official or fire chief, the building official or fire chief are 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 Town, 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 507 of 549 6 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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. This Chapter is not intended to prevent the use of any material, design or method not specifically prescribed by this Chapter, provided that any such alternative is approved. An alternative material, design or method shall be approved where the building official and fire chief find that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent 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. If an alternative material, design or method is not approved, the building official or fire chief shall provide written reasons as to why the alternative was not approved. 7A04 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS 7A04.1 General. 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 Section 722. 7A05 IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL 7A05.1 General. Structures hereafter constructed, modified, or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall meet the requirements of Section 7A06. Materials required to be ignition-resistant shall comply with the requirements of Section 7A05.2. 7A05.2 Ignition-resistant building materials. Ignition-resistant building materials shall comply with any one or more 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: May 17, 2022 - Page 508 of 549 7 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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 10½ 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. Exceptions: 1. 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 a 10-minute duration. 4.2. SFM Standard 12-7A-3, Horizontal Projection Underside. A fire resistance test standard consisting of a 300kW intensity direct flame exposure for a10-minute duration. 4.3. SFM Standard 12-7A-4, Decking. A two-part test consisting of a heat release rate (Part A) deck assembly combustion May 17, 2022 - Page 509 of 549 8 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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 2.2lb (1kg) burning "Class A" size 12"x12"x2.25" (300mm x 300mm x 57mm) roof test brand. 4.4. 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. 4.5. 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. 5. Exterior Windows. Dual or triple pane windows that meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code. 7A06 IGNITION-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION 7A06.1 General. Ignition-resistant construction shall comply with Sections 7A06.2-7A06.11. 7A06.2 Roof covering. All roof coverings shall comply with Chapter 15 of this code. 7A06.2.1 Roof valleys. Where provided, valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019 inches (0.48 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) corrosion- resistant metal installed over a minimum 36 inch (914 mm) wide 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 wood or ¾ inch (19.1 mm) nominal fire-retardant-treated plywood, identified for exterior use and complying with 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 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: May 17, 2022 - Page 510 of 549 9 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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 than 33% of a given wall and shall not be within 5 feet of finish 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, if labeled for exterior use and complying with 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 constructed of approved noncombustible materials, standard solid core wood not less than 1¾ 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 and shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion-resistant materials with openings not to exceed ¼ inch (6.4 mm) or perforated noncombustible materials with perforations not to exceed ¼ inch (6.4 mm), or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. May 17, 2022 - Page 511 of 549 10 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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 accessory structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10%, 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: 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 comply with 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 include a spark arrester constructed of woven or welded wire screening of 12 USA standard gage wire (0.1046 inch, 2.66 mm) having openings not exceeding ½ inch (12.7 mm). The net free area of the spark arrester shall be not less than 4 times the net free area of the outlet of the chimney. Section 1505.1 is amended to read as follows: 1505.1 General. All roof assemblies and roof coverings shall be Class A. Wood shakes and shingles are prohibited unless exempted for replacement or repair as defined in Section 1505.1.1. Where the roof profile allows space between the roof covering and the roof decking at the eave ends, the spaces shall be constructed to prevent intrusion of flames and embers or have one layer of 72-pound (32.4 kg) mineral-surfaced non-perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Exception: Skylights and sloped glazing that comply with Chapter 24 or Section 2610. Section 1505.1.1 is added as follows: May 17, 2022 - Page 512 of 549 11 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 1505.1.1 Replacement or repair. Each structure with a nonconforming roof covering or roof assembly shall be allowed one replacement or repair of 25% or less of the roof area. Replacement or repair in excess of 25% or a second replacement or repair of the roof covering or roof assembly shall trigger replacement of the nonconforming covering or assembly in its entirety. Emergency repairs of less than 10 sq/ft shall not be subject to the 25% rule. Table 1505.1 is deleted. Sections 1505.3, 1505.4, 1505.5, 1505.6, and 1505.7 are deleted. Section 1507.1.2 is amended to read as follows: 1507.1.2 Ice barriers. Ice barriers shall be installed for all shingle types, metal roof panels and mineral-surfaced roll roofing. The ice barrier shall consist of not less than two layers of underlayment cemented together, or a self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet shall be used in place of normal underlayment. The ice barrier shall completely cover all roof surfaces. Exception: Detached accessory structures that do not contain conditioned floor area. Sections 1507.8 and 1597.9 are deleted. Section 1511.7.6 is added as follows: 1511.7.6 Snow retention devices. New roof assemblies shall be designed to prevent accumulations of snow from shedding onto exterior balconies, decks, stairways, sidewalks, streets, alleys, pedestrian and vehicle exits from buildings, areas directly above or in front of utility meters, and adjacent properties. Snow retention devices shall be designed by a registered design professional or as approved by the building official. Exception: Roof areas with a horizontal projection of less than 48 inches that will not receive snow shedding from a higher roof. The horizontal projection shall be measured perpendicular to the exterior wall line from the edge of the roof or eave to the intersecting wall surface. Section 1603.2 is added as follows: 1603.2 Boulder or rock walls. Boulder or rock walls with a height greater than 4 feet (1219 mm) shall be designed by a registered design professional and comply with Section 1603.1. Section 1604.1.1 is added as follows: 1604.1.1 Hazard areas. All new construction and additions to existing structures located in mapped debris flow, rock fall, avalanche and flood hazard areas shall be designed in compliance with Title 12, Chapter 21 of the Vail Town Code. Section 1608.1 is amended to read as follows: May 17, 2022 - Page 513 of 549 12 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 1608.1 General. Design snow loads shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 7 of ASCE 7, and design roof loads shall be not less than that determined by Section 1608.2. Section 1608.2 is amended to read as follows: 1608.2 Ground and roof snow loads. The ground snow loads to be used in determining the design snow loads shall be 142 pounds per sq/ft. Designs for roof snow loads shall be as follows: 1. Roof pitches of less than 4:12 shall be designed to carry a snow load of 100 pounds per sq/ft. 2. Roof pitches of 4:12 and greater shall be designed to carry a snow load of 80 pounds per sq/ft. All structures shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice for non-slippery roof surfaces. Snow loads for decks and exterior balconies shall be as required for roofs. Section 1612.3 is amended to read as follows: 1612.3 Flood hazard areas. The Town has adopted a flood hazard map including areas of special flood hazard as identified by FEMA in the report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for The Town of Vail" dated December 2007, as amended, with the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and related supporting data. The flood hazard map and supporting data are hereby adopted by reference. Section 2111.1 is amended to read as follows: 2111.1 General. The construction of masonry fireplaces, consisting of concrete or masonry, shall comply with this Section and Title 5, Chapter 3 of the Vail Town Code. Section 2902.2, Exception 2 is amended to read as follows: 2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load, including both employees and customers, of 30 or fewer. Section 2902.2, Exception 4 is deleted. Section 3107.1 is amended to read as follows: 3107.1 General. Signs shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with this code and Title 11 of the Vail Town Code. Section 3109 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 3109 SWIMMING POOLS, SPAS AND HOT TUBS 3109.1 General. The design and construction of swimming pools, spas and hot tubs shall comply with the requirements of Sections 3109.2-3109.5, other applicable sections of this code, and the Colorado Department of May 17, 2022 - Page 514 of 549 13 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division standard 5 CCR 1003-5. Where spas or hot tubs are equipped with a lockable safety cover complying with ASTM F1346 and swimming pools are equipped with a powered safety cover that complies with ASTM F1346, the areas where those spas, hot tubs or pools are located shall be exempt from Sections 3109.2-3109.6. 3109.2 Public and semi-public swimming pools. Public and semi-public swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier not less than 60 inches (1524 mm) in height and shall comply with Sections 3109.4-3109.6. 3109.3 Private swimming pools. Private swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by a barrier not less than 48 inches (1524 mm) in height and shall comply with Sections 3109.4-3109.6. 3109.4 Barriers. The vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of the barrier shall be not greater than 2 inches (51 mm) measured on the side of the barrier that faces away from the swimming pool. Where the top of the pool structure is above grade, the barrier is authorized to be at ground level or mounted on top of the pool structure, and the vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall be not greater than 4 inches (102 mm). 3109.4.1 Openings. Openings in the barrier shall not allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere. 3109.4.2 Solid barrier surfaces. Solid barriers which do not have openings shall not contain indentations or protrusions, except for normal construction tolerances and tooled masonry joints. 3109.4.3 Closely spaced horizontal members. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is less than 45 inches (1143 mm), the horizontal members shall be located on the swimming pool side of the barrier. Spacing between vertical members shall be not greater than 1¾ inches (44 mm) in width. Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall be not greater than 1¾ inches (44 mm) in width. 3109.4.4 Widely spaced horizontal members. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is 45 inches (1143 mm) or more, spacing between vertical members shall be not greater than 4 inches (102 mm). Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall be not greater than 1¾ inches (44 mm) in width. 3109.4.5 Chain link dimensions. Mesh size for chain link fences shall be not greater than a 2¼ inch (57 mm) square unless the fence is provided with slats fastened at the top or the bottom that reduce the openings to not more than 1¾ inches (44 mm). May 17, 2022 - Page 515 of 549 14 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 3109.4.6 Diagonal members. Where the barrier is composed of diagonal members, the opening formed by the diagonal members shall be not greater than 1¾ inches (44 mm). 3109.4.7 Clear zone. Where any equipment, including pool equipment, are on the same lot as a pool or spa and such equipment is located outside of the barrier protecting the pool or spa, such equipment shall be located not less than 36 inches (914 mm) from the outside of the barrier. 3109.4.8 Doors and gates. Access doors or gates shall be equipped to accommodate a locking device. Pedestrian access doors or gates shall open outward away from the pool and shall be self-closing and have a self- latching device. Doors or gates other than pedestrian access doors or gates shall have a self-latching device. If the release mechanism of the self- latching device is located less than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the bottom of the door or gate, the release mechanism shall be located on the pool side of the door or gate 3 inches (76 mm) or more below the top of the door or gate, and the door or gate and barrier shall be without openings greater than ½ inch (12.7 mm) within 18 inches (457 mm) of the release mechanism. 3109.4.9 Structure wall as barrier. Where a wall of a structure serves as part of the barrier, one of the following shall apply: 1. Doors, gates and operable windows with direct access to the pool through the wall shall be equipped with an alarm that produces an audible warning when the door or its screen, if present, are opened. The alarm shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2017. In dwellings not required to be accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the alarm deactivation switch(es) shall be located not less than 54 inches (1372 mm) above the finished floor. In dwellings required to be Accessible units, Type A units or Type B units, the alarm deactivation switch(es) shall be located not higher than 54 inches (1372 mm) and not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor. In structures other than dwellings, the alarm deactivation switch(es) shall be located not higher than 54 inches (1372 mm) and not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor. 2. A safety cover that is listed and labeled in accordance with ASTM F1346 is installed for the pools and spas. 3. An approved means of protection, such as self-closing doors with self-latching devices, that provides a degree of protection that is not less than the protection afforded by Item 1 or 2. 3109.4.10 Pool structure as barrier. Where an above-ground pool structure is used as a barrier or the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure, and the means of access is a ladder or steps, then the ladder or steps either shall be capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access, or the ladder or steps shall be surrounded by a barrier that meets the requirements of Section 3109.4.1-3109.4.8. Where the ladder or May 17, 2022 - Page 516 of 549 15 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX steps are secured, locked or removed, any opening created shall not allow the passage of a 4-inch (102 mm) diameter sphere. 3109.5 Indoor swimming pools. Walls surrounding indoor swimming pools shall not be required to comply with Section 3109.4.9. 3109.6 Prohibited locations. Barriers shall be located so as to prohibit permanent structures, equipment or similar objects from being used to climb over the barriers. 3109.7 Entrapment avoidance. Suction outlets shall be designed and installed in accordance with ANSI/APSP-7. 10-1-3: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Residential Code, 2021 Edition: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Residential Code. Section R105.2, Item 10 in the Building portion, is amended to read as follows: 10. Decks not exceeding 200 sq/ft (18.6 m2) in area, not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, and not serving the exit door required by Section R311.4. Section R109.1.5 is amended to read as follows: R109.1.5 Other inspections. In addition to inspections in Sections R109.1.1-R109.1.4, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with this code and any other Town code, standard, requirement or regulation. Table R301.2 is amended to read as follows: CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA GROUND SNOW LOADo WIND DESIGN SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORYf SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM ICE BARRIER UNDERLAYMENT REQUIREDh FLOOD HAZARDSg AIR FREEZING INDEXi MEAN ANNUAL TEMPj Speedd (mph) Topographical effectsk Special wind regionl Windborne debris zonem Weatheringa Frost line depthb Termitec 140 115 NO NO NO B SEVERE 48" None to Slight YES, 100% - 2500 37.40 MANUAL J DESIGN CRITERIAn Elevation Altitude correction factore Coincident wet bulb Indoor winter design relative humidity Indoor winter design dry-bulb temperature Outdoor winter design dry- bulb temperature Heating temperature difference 8150' .745 540 30% 700 -50 750 Latitude Daily Range Indoor summer design relative humidity Summer design gains Indoor summer design dry-bulb temperature Outdoor summer design dry-bulb temperature Cooling temperature difference 39.640 N H 50% -33 to -53 750 820 70 Section R301.2.3 is amended to read as follows: May 17, 2022 - Page 517 of 549 16 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX R301.2.3 Snow loads. The ground snow loads to be used in determining design snow loads shall be 142 pounds per sq/ft. Designs for roof snow loads shall be as follows: 1. Roof pitches of less than 4:12 shall be designed to carry a snow load of 100 pounds per sq/ft. 2. Roof pitches of 4:12 and greater shall be designed to carry a snow load of 80 pounds per sq/ft. All buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice for non-slippery roof surfaces. Snow loads for decks and exterior balconies shall be as required for roofs. Section 311.7.11, Exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: Alternating tread devices are allowed to be used as an element of a means of egress for lofts, mezzanines and similar areas of 200 gross sq/ft (18.6 m2) or less where an emergency escape and rescue opening is provided for the area served and such devices do not provide exclusive access to a kitchen or bathroom. Section R311.7.12, Exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: Ships ladders are allowed to be used as an element of a means of egress for lofts, mezzanines and similar areas of 200 gross sq/ft (18.6 m2) or less where an emergency escape and rescue opening is provided for the area served and such devices do not provide exclusive access to a kitchen or bathroom. Section R313.1, Exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: An automatic sprinkler system is required when a Level 3 alteration, as classified by the Vail Existing Building Code, occurs to a townhouse unit that is 3600 sq/ft or greater, including attached garages. Existing townhouses that are 3600 sq/ft or more may add up to 100 sq/ft of floor area without triggering the sprinkler retrofit requirement. This exemption may only be taken once and does not include a detached garage. Section R313.1.1 is amended to read as follows: R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, NFPA 13R or NFPA 13 standards and Vail Fire and Emergency Services sprinkler installation standards. Section R313.2, Exception is amended to read as follows: Exception: An automatic sprinkler system is required when a Level 3 alteration, as classified by the Vail Existing Building Code, occurs to a one- or two-family dwelling that is 3,600 sq/ft or greater, including attached garages. May 17, 2022 - Page 518 of 549 17 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Existing one- or two-family dwellings of 3600 sq/ft or more may add up to 100 sq/ft of floor area without triggering the sprinkler retrofit requirement. This exemption may only be taken once. This does not include a detached garage. For purposes of this Section, a two-family dwelling shall be considered two separate structures. Section R313.2.1 is amended to read as follows: R313.2.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for one- and two-family dwellings shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13D, NFPA 13R or NFPA 13 standards and Vail Fire and Emergency Services sprinkler installation standards. Section R315.2 is amended to read as follows: R315.2 Where required. Carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 72, NFPA 720, C.R.S. § 38-45-101 and Vail Fire and Emergency Services alarm installation standards. Section R315.2.1 is amended to read as follows: R315.2.1 New construction. For new construction, carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 72, NFPA 720, C.R.S. § 38-45-101 and Vail Fire and Emergency Services alarm installation standards. Section R315.3 is amended by the addition of the following text: In addition to the above locations, carbon monoxide alarms shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 72, NFPA 720, C.R.S. § 38-45-101 and Vail Fire and Emergency Services alarm installation standards. Section R315.7 is amended to read as follows: R315.7 Carbon monoxide detection systems. Carbon monoxide detection systems shall be permitted to be used in lieu of carbon monoxide alarms and shall comply with NFPA 72, NFPA 720, C.R.S. § 38-45-101 and Vail Fire and Emergency Services alarm installation standards. Section R315.7.2 is amended to read as follows: R315.7.2 Location. Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed in accordance with Section R315.3. Section R327.1 is amended to read as follows: R327.1 General. The design and construction of swimming pools and spas shall comply with Section 3109 of the Vail Building Code. Section R329.2 is amended to read as follows: R329.2 Installation. The installation of stationary engine generators shall be in an approved location and in accordance with the listing, the manufacturer's installation instructions and NFPA 70. May 17, 2022 - Page 519 of 549 18 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Section R507.2.1 is amended by the addition of the following exception: Exception: An approved flashing detail in accordance with Section R507.2.4 that prevents moisture and water accumulation on member surfaces and joints may be utilized in-lieu of preservative-treated materials. Section R902.1 is amended to read as follows: R902.1 Roofing materials. All roof assemblies and roof coverings shall be Class A. Wood shakes and shingles are prohibited unless exempted for replacement or repair as defined in Section 1505.1.1. Where the roof profile allows space between the roof covering and the roof decking at the eave ends, the spaces shall be constructed to prevent intrusion of flames and embers or have one layer of 72-pound (32.4 kg) mineral-surfaced non- perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Section R902.1.1 is added as follows: R902.1.1 Replacement or repair. Each structure with a nonconforming roof covering or roof assembly shall be allowed one replacement or repair of 25% or less of the roof area. Replacement or repair in excess of 25% or a second replacement or repair of the roof covering or roof assembly shall trigger replacement of the nonconforming covering or assembly in its entirety. Emergency repairs of less than 10 sq/ft are not subject to the 25% rule. For purposes of this Section, a two-family dwelling shall be considered two separate structures. Section R902.2 is deleted. Section R903.5 is added as follows: R903.5 Snow retention devices. New roof assemblies shall be designed to prevent accumulations of snow from shedding onto areas directly above or in front of utility meters or adjacent properties. The design of snow retention devices shall be provided by a registered design professional or as approved by the building official. Exception: Roof areas with a horizontal projection of less than 48 inches that will not receive snow shedding from a higher roof. The horizontal projection shall be measured perpendicular to the exterior wall line from the edge of the roof or eave to the intersecting wall surface. Section R905.1.2 is amended to read as follows: R905.1.2 Ice barriers. Ice barriers shall be installed for all shingle types, metal roof panels and mineral-surfaced roll roofing. The ice barrier shall consist of not less than two layers of underlayment cemented together, or a self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet shall be used in place of normal underlayment. The ice barrier shall completely cover all roof surfaces. May 17, 2022 - Page 520 of 549 19 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Exception: Detached accessory structures that do not contain conditioned floor area. Sections R905.7 and R905.8 are deleted. Section R1001.1 is amended to read as follows: R1001.1 General. Masonry fireplaces shall be constructed in accordance with this Section, the applicable provisions of Chapters 3 and 4 of this code, and Title 5, Chapter 3 of the Vail Town Code. Chapters 11-43 are deleted from the Vail Residential Code and replaced with the corresponding Vail Codes and the National Electrical Code. 10-1-4: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Fire Code, 2021 Edition: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Fire Code. Section 202 is amended by the addition of the following definitions: FALSE ALARM. See Title 4 of Vail Town Code. PORTABLE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE. A portable, outdoor, solid fuel burning fireplace constructed of steel, concrete, clay or other non- combustible material and equipped with a screen or other approved spark arrestor, of open design or equipped with a small hearth opening and a short chimney or chimney opening in the top. Section 307.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 307.1.1 Prohibited open burning. The following burning activities are prohibited: 1. Open burning. 2. Bonfires. 3. Recreational fires. 4. The burning of any materials when a National Weather Service Red Flag Warning is activated. 5. The burning of any materials when Stage 2 or 3 fire restrictions are in place. 6. The use of portable outdoor fireplaces when Stage 2 or 3 fire restrictions are in place. Exceptions: 1. Burning conducted for training purposes by Vail Fire and Emergency Services. May 17, 2022 - Page 521 of 549 20 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 2. If the burning is a smokeless flare or safety flare used to indicate danger to the public. 3. Open burning conducted pursuant to a permit issued by the Fire Code Official upon written application, if the Fire Code Official determines that such burning will be performed without hazard to the public health, safety or welfare. 4. Prescribed burning for the purpose of reducing the impact of wildland fire when authorized by the Fire Code Official. 5. The use of propane or natural gas appliances equipped with automatic shut-off controls. Section 307.3 is amended to read as follows: 307.3 Extinguishment authority. Where any open burning, permitted or otherwise (including the use of a portable outdoor fireplace), creates or adds to a hazardous situation or creates a nuisance or health risk due to smoke or other products of combustion, the fire shall be ordered to be extinguished by Vail Fire and Emergency Services or the Vail Police Department. Sections 307.4.1 and 3.07.4.2 are deleted. Section 307.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 307.4.3 Portable outdoor fireplaces. Use of a portable outdoor fireplace shall be permitted, subject to the following restrictions: 1. Portable outdoor fireplaces shall be equipped with a properly fitting spark screen or arrestor. 2. Portable outdoor fireplaces shall be used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 3. Portable outdoor fireplaces shall maintain a minimum clearance of 15 feet from any structure or other combustible materials. 4. Smoke created from a portable outdoor fireplace shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid causing a nuisance or hazardous condition. 5. Use of a portable outdoor fireplace shall be in accordance with Section 307.5, as amended. 6. Use of a portable outdoor fireplace on short-term rental property is strictly prohibited. 7. Use of a portable outdoor fireplace is prohibited when Stage 2 or 3 fire restrictions are in place. Section 308.1.4, Exception 3 is amended to read as follows: 3. LP-gas cooking devices having LP-gas container with a water capacity not greater than 20 pounds [nominal 17-pound (0.454 kg) LP gas capacity]. May 17, 2022 - Page 522 of 549 21 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Section 308.3.1 is amended to add: 11. Candles may only be used in constantly attended locations. Section 308.1.6.3 is amended to read as follows: 308.1.6.3 Sky lanterns. The use of sky lanterns is prohibited. Section 503.6 is amended to read as follows: 503.6 Security gates. The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road or driveway shall be approved by the fire code official. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. Section 605.9 is amended to read as follows: 605.9 Gas meters. Above-ground gas meters, regulators and piping subject to damage shall be protected by a barrier complying with Section 312 or otherwise protected in an approved manner. Snow & ice build-up around gas and other utility meters shall be kept clear and maintained at all times. Section 903.2.10, item 2 is amended by deleting the exception. Section 903.3.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Automatic sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13D and Vail Fire and Emergency Services installation standards. Section 903.4 is amended by deleting all exceptions. Section 907.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.2 Where required. An approved fire alarm system installed in accordance with this code, NFPA 72 and Vail Fire and Emergency Services installation standards is required in new buildings, structures, one- and two- family dwellings and townhomes in accordance with Sections 907.2.1- 907.2.23, with occupant notification in accordance with Section 907.5, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code. Not fewer than one manual fire alarm box is required in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm systems employing automatic fire detectors or waterflow detection devices. Where other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes due to sprinklers, a single fire alarm box shall be installed. May 17, 2022 - Page 523 of 549 22 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Exceptions: 1. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to elevator recall control and supervisory service. 2. The manual fire alarm box is not required for Group R-2 occupancies unless required by the Fire Code Official to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. Where provided, the manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is open to the public. 3. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses. Section 907.2.11.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.2.11.2 Groups R-2, R-3, R-4, I-2, and all residential properties for rent or lease. Single or multiple-station smoke alarms shall be installed and maintained in Groups R-2, R-3, R-4, I-2, and all residential properties that are available for rent or lease, regardless of occupant load, in all of the following locations: 1. On the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms. 2. In each room used for sleeping purposes. 3. In each story within a dwelling unit, including basements but not including crawl spaces and uninhabitable attics. In dwelling units with split levels and without an intervening door between the adjacent levels, a smoke alarm installed on the upper level shall suffice for the adjacent lower level provided that the lower level is less than one full story below the upper level. Section 907.4.1 is amended by the addition of the following Exception: 2. In residential installations where the control panel is located in a closet or room with no mechanical equipment. Section 907.6.6 is amended by deleting all exceptions. Section 915.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 915.1.1 Where required. Carbon monoxide detection shall be provided in Group I-1, I-2, I-4, R, one- and two-family dwellings and townhomes, and in classrooms in E occupancies in the locations specified in Section 915.2 where any of the conditions in Sections 915.1.2-915.1.6 exist. Section 1103.8 is amended to read as follows: 1103.8 Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms. Single- and multiple- station smoke alarms shall be installed in existing I-1, R, one- and two- family dwellings and townhomes in accordance with Sections 1103.8.1- 1103.8.3. Section 1103.8.1 is amended by deleting Exception 2. May 17, 2022 - Page 524 of 549 23 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Appendix B, Section B101.1 is amended by the addition of the following: The maximum flow reduction for sprinklered buildings shall not exceed 50%. 10-1-5: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Energy Conservation Code, 2021 Edition: Section C101.1 is amended to read as follows: C101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Energy Conservation Code. Section C202 is amended by the addition of the following definitions: EV-CAPABLE PARKING SPACE. A parking space for an electric vehicle (EV) with the electrical panel capacity and conduit installed to support future implementation of EV charging with a 208/240-volt (or greater), 40-ampere (or greater) circuit, and a dedicated, labeled space in the electrical panel. EV-INSTALLED PARKING SPACE. A parking space for an electric vehicle (EV) that has the EV supply equipment (EVSE) fully installed from the electrical panel to the parking space, including charging equipment. Section C405.13 is added as follows: C405.13 EV charging. EV charging capabilities and required parking spaces shall be determined according to Table C405.13. Exception: A request for a reduction in the number of required EV- installed parking spaces can be made if DC fast charging stations are installed to fulfill the requirements of this subsection. An EV parking study must be submitted to support the request and based on the findings of the analysis or study, the building official is authorized to approve a reduction in the number of required EV-installed parking spaces. Table C405.13 is added as follows: TABLE C405.13 EV PARKING SPACESa Property Type Space Requirements All commercial properties (incl. multi-family developments) 5% EV-installed parking spaces + 50% EV-capable parking spaces a. These provisions are for new construction only. Section R101.1 is amended to read as follows: R101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Energy Conservation Code. Section R202 is amended by the addition of the following definitions: May 17, 2022 - Page 525 of 549 24 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX EV-CAPABLE PARKING SPACE. An EV parking space with the electrical panel capacity and conduit installed to support future implementation of EV charging with a 208/240-volt (or greater), 40-ampere (or greater) circuit, with a dedicated, labeled space within the electrical panel. SOLAR-READY ZONE. A section of the roof or building overhang designated and reserved for the future installation of a solar photovoltaic or solar thermal system. Table R402.1.3 is amended by deleting footnote i. Section R403.7 is amended to read as follows: R403.7 Equipment sizing and efficiency rating. Heating and cooling equipment shall be sized in accordance with ACCA Manual S based on building loads calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J or other heating and cooling calculation methodologies. All new heating and cooling equipment shall have an efficiency rating of 92% AFUE or better. Exception: The replacement, alteration or repair of an existing system. Section R403.13 is added as follows: R403.13 Fire pits. Gas fueled fire pits and other outdoor fireplaces and appliances require automatic shut-off controls with a maximum 60-minute timer. Section R403.14 is added as follows: R403.14 Solar-ready zone. New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with not less than 600 sq/ft (55.74 m2) of roof area oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north, shall comply with Sections R403.14.1-R403.7. Exceptions: 1. A new residential building with a permanently installed on-site renewable energy system. 2. A building where all areas of the roof that would otherwise meet the requirements of Section R403.14 are in full or partial shade for more than 70% of daylight hours annually. R403.14.1 Construction document requirements for solar-ready zone. Construction documents shall indicate the solar-ready zone. R403.14.2 Solar-ready zone. The solar-ready zone shall be not less than 300 sq/ft (27.87 m2) exclusive of mandatory access or setback areas as required by the Vail Fire Code. New townhouses of 3 stories or less in height above grade plane and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2,000 sq/ft (185.8 m2) per dwelling shall have a solar-ready zone area of not less than 150 sq/ft (13.94 m2). The solar-ready zone shall be composed of areas not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) in width and not less than 80 sq/ft May 17, 2022 - Page 526 of 549 25 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX (7.44 m2) exclusive of access or set-back areas as required by the Vail Fire Code. R403.14.3 Obstructions. Solar-ready zones shall be free from obstructions, including but not limited to vents, chimneys, and other roof- mounted equipment. R403.14.4 Capped roof penetration sleeve. A capped roof penetration sleeve shall be provided adjacent to all solar-ready zones located on roofs. The capped roof penetration sleeve shall be sized to accommodate the future photovoltaic system conduit and shall have an inside diameter of not less than 1½ inches (38 mm). R403.14.5 Roof load documentation. The structural design loads for roof dead load and roof live load shall be clearly indicated on the construction documents. R403.14.6 Interconnection pathway. Construction documents shall indicate pathways for routing of conduit or plumbing from the solar-ready zone to the electrical service panel or service hot water system. R403.14.7 Electrical service reserved space. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow installation of a dual pole circuit breaker for future solar electric installation and shall be labeled "For Future Solar Electric." The reserved space shall be positioned at the opposite (load) end from the input feeder location or main circuit location. R403.14.8 Certificate. A permanent certificate, indicating the solar-ready zone and other requirements of this section, shall be posted near the electrical distribution panel, water heater or other conspicuous location by the builder or registered design professional. Section R404.4 is added as follows: R404.4 EV charging. EV charging capabilities and required parking spaces shall be determined according to Table R404.4. Table R404.4 is added as follows: TABLE R404.4 EV PARKING SPACESa Property Type Space Requirements One- and two-family dwellings, townhouses 1 EV-capable space per dwelling unit a. These provisions are for new construction only. Section R404.5 is added as follows: R404.5 Electric readiness. Systems using gas or propane to serve individual dwelling units shall comply with R404.5.1 and R404.5.2. R404.5.1 Receptacle required. A dedicated electrical receptacle connected to the electric panel with an appropriately sized branch circuit May 17, 2022 - Page 527 of 549 26 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX shall be provided within 36 inches (914 mm) of each gas or propane water heater, clothes dryer, and conventional cooking appliance. R404.5.2 Receptacle identification. The branch circuits within the electric panel serving the future electric appliances shall be appropriately labeled for their intended use. 10-1-6: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE: The International Plumbing Code, 2021 Edition, is amended by all amendments adopted by the State of Colorado and referred to as the "Colorado Plumbing Code", in addition to the following: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Plumbing Code. Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.1 Creation of Agency. The Town's Building Department is hereby created and the official in charge shall be known as the building official. The function of this agency shall be the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this code. Section 115.4 is deleted. Section 305.4.1 is amended to read as follows: 305.4.1 Sewer depth. Per Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) standards, building sewers shall be installed not less than 54 inches (1372 mm) below grade. Section 903.1 is amended to read as follows: 903.1.1 Roof extension unprotected. Open vent pipes that extend through a roof shall be terminated not less than 16 inches (406 mm) above the roof. Section 903.2 is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Frost closure. Vent extensions through a roof or wall shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in diameter. Any increase in size of the vent shall be made not less than 1 foot (305 mm) inside the thermal envelope of the building. 10-1-7: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE: The International Fuel Gas Code, 2021 Edition is amended by all amendments adopted by the State and referred to as the "Colorado Fuel Gas Code," and the following : Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Fuel Gas Code. Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows: May 17, 2022 - Page 528 of 549 27 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 103.1 Creation of agency. The Town's Building Department is hereby created and the official in charge shall be known as the building official. The function of this agency shall be the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this code. Section 115.4 is deleted. Table 503.8 is amended as follows: A Clearance above finished grade level, veranda, porch, deck, or balcony 36 inches (all other values within the table are unchanged.) 10-1-8: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Mechanical Code, 2021 Edition: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Mechanical Code. Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.1 Creation of agency. The Town's Building Department is hereby created and the official in charge shall be known as the building official. The function of this agency shall be the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this code. Section 115.4 is deleted. Section 401.4 is amended by the addition of the following text: 5. The bottom of intake openings shall be located not less than 36 inches (914 mm) above finished grade. Section 701.3 is added as follows: 701.3 Combustion air ducts. Combustion air ducts shall terminate to the outside a minimum of 36 inches (914 mm) above finished grade. Section 804.3.4, Item 6 is amended to read as follows: 6. The bottom of the vent termination shall be located not less than 36 inches (914 mm) above finished grade. 10-1-9: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE: The following amendments are hereby made to the International Existing Building Code, 2021 Edition: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Vail Existing Building Code. May 17, 2022 - Page 529 of 549 28 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows: 103.1 Creation of agency. The Town's Building Department is hereby created and the official in charge shall be known as the building official. The function of this agency shall be the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this code. Section 101.4.2 is amended to read as follows: 101.4.2: Buildings previously occupied. The legal occupancy of any building existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the Vail Fire Code, or as deemed necessary by the code official for safety. 10-1-10: AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, NFPA 70: The Town hereby adopts, by reference, all amendments to the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, 2020 Edition, as adopted by the State of Colorado and referred to as the "Colorado Electrical Code". 10-1-11: AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS: The following amendment is hereby made to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition: Section 301 is amended to read as follows: Section 301 General. For the purpose of this code, certain terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this section or as specified in the Vail Building Code. BUILDING CODE is the 2021 International Building Code, as adopted, amended and titled the Vail Building Code. DANGEROUS BUILDING is any building or structure deemed to be dangerous under the provisions of Section 302 of this code. 10-1-12: VIOLATION AND PENALTY: A. It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of any code adopted in this Chapter. B. Violations of this Chapter shall be subject to the penalties provided in Section 1-4-1 of this Code. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition, the Town may maintain an action for damages, declaratory relief, specific performance, injunction, or any other appropriate relief for a violation of any provision of this Chapter. Section 2. The Codes adopted and amended by this Ordinance shall be effective for all complete building permit applications received by the Town's Community Development Department on or after July 5, 2022. May 17, 2022 - Page 530 of 549 29 5/5/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BUILDING\CODE REFERENCE ITEMS & ADOPTION\2021 CODES\COUNCIL PACKAGE\ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 22 - TITLE 10 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATE, 2ND READING.DOCX 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 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 3 rd day of May, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ___ day of _________________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ________________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ____ day of ________________, 2022. ________________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 531 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 9, S eries of 2022, Second Reading, A n Ordinance Correcting Various S ections of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to Reflect Changes in the State L aw P RE S E NT E R(S ): J ohnathan S pences, Planning Manager AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, on second reading. B AC K G RO UND: During a routine audit, American L egal P ublishing, the Vail Town Code codifier, identified a limited number of instances where the code references to Colorado Revised S tatues are out of date. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 corrects these outdated references. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 on second reading. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Draft Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 Attachment B. P E C Memorandum April 11, 2022 Attachment C. P E C Results April 11, 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 532 of 549 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 17, 2022 SUBJECT: Second reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, an ordinance for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC22-0003) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to correct out of date references identified by an audit performed by the code company. These updates are meant to reflect changes in state law (Colorado Revised Statues) and are not substantive in nature. The Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Prescribed Regulation Amendment on April 11, 2022 and recommended approval unanimously. The Vail Town Council unanimously approved, on first reading, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 on May 3, 2022 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, on second reading. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Please see the draft ordinance prepared by the Town’s legal staff included as Attachment A for an understanding of the limited scope of the changes to Title 12 of The Vail Town Code to correct out of date references. May 17, 2022 - Page 533 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 IV. BACKGROUND During a routine audit, American Legal Publishing, the Vail Town Code codifier, identified a limited number of instances where the code references to Colorado Revised Statues are out of date. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 corrects these outdated references. V. RECOMMENDED MOTION Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, on second reading, the Community Development Department recommends the Council pass the following motion: “The Vail Town Council approves, on second reading, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022, an ordinance amending Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto.” Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 9 Series of 2022, the Community Development Department recommends the Council m ake the following findings: “The Vail Town Council finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.” VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2022 B. Staff Memorandum to PEC, April 11, 2022 C. PEC Minutes, April 11, 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 534 of 549 1 4/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BOARDS\TOWN COUNCIL\ORDINANCES\22\ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2022 (TITLE 12 CLEAN UP).DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE CORRECTING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW WHEREAS, the Town seeks to maintain an accurate municipal code, substantive changes were made to various Title 12 zoning regulations; and WHERAS, the Town wishes to have accurate guidelines regarding geologically sensitive areas and development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: For purposes of this Title, the following terms shall have the following meanings: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. * * * FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB UNIT: An individual dwelling unit in a fractional fee club described as such in the project documentation and not an accommodation unit within the fractional fee club. No offer of a fractional fee club unit shall be made except pursuant to an application for registration and certification as a subdivision developer of a timeshare program or an exemption from registration approved by the State of Colorado Real Estate Commission pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 12-61-401 et seq., C.R.S. § 12-10-501, et seq., and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request, the developer of a fractional fee club unit shall provide to the staff of the Department of Community Development a copy of the application or request for exemption filed with the State of Colorado Real Estate Commission and/or evidence of approval of the application or request for exemption. * * * Section 2. Section 12-21-2 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings words contained in this section are defined as follows: May 17, 2022 - Page 535 of 549 2 4/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BOARDS\TOWN COUNCIL\ORDINANCES\22\ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2022 (TITLE 12 CLEAN UP).DOCX * * * START OF CONSTRUCTION (for other than new construction or Substantial Improvements Under The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. No. 97-348 16 U.S.C. § 3501, et seq.)): Includes Ssubstantial 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 or 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. * * * Section 3. Section 12-21-13.B.1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows: 12-21-13: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: * * * 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 purposes 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 C.R.S. § 23-41-208, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-25-102 C.R.S. § 12-120-202, as amended, May 17, 2022 - Page 536 of 549 3 4/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BOARDS\TOWN COUNCIL\ORDINANCES\22\ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2022 (TITLE 12 CLEAN UP).DOCX under the direction of and at the expense of the owner/applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. * * * Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 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 ______________, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the _____day of ______________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ___ day of ______________, 2022. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor May 17, 2022 - Page 537 of 549 4 4/18/2022 S:\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\BOARDS\TOWN COUNCIL\ORDINANCES\22\ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 2022 (TITLE 12 CLEAN UP).DOCX ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 538 of 549 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 11, 2022 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 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC22-0003) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to correct out of date references identified by an audit performed by the code company. These updates are meant to reflect changes in state law (Colorado Revised Statues) and are not substantive in nature. 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, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to correct out of date references. These out of date references to Colorado Revised Statutes were discovered by a routine audit performed by the code company. III. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Please see the draft ordinance prepared by the Town’s legal staff included as Attachment A for an understanding of the limited scope of the changes. May 17, 2022 - Page 539 of 549 Town of Vail Page 2 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 (DRB) has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. The DRB held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their review. 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 provides 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: May 17, 2022 - Page 540 of 549 Town of Vail Page 3 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. 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. 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 prescribed regulation amendment does not have any identifiable environmental impacts. May 17, 2022 - Page 541 of 549 Town of Vail Page 4 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 address minor changes in state law and out of date references in order to maintain an accurate municipal code. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment meets this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will update the Town Code to reflect changes to state law and the references thereto. The changes will not have bearing on development objectives of the Town of Vail. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment meets this criterion. 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 proposed text changes are the result of changes made to Colorado Revised Statues which the code, at times, references. The amendments bring the code up to date with applicable statutes. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed text amendments will have no effect on the town’s land use regulations or their effectiveness thereof. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. May 17, 2022 - Page 542 of 549 Town of Vail Page 5 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. VIII. 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 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 prescribed regulation 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 prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC22-0003).” 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 VII of the April 11, 2022 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations 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 May 17, 2022 - Page 543 of 549 Town of Vail Page 6 character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance correcting various sections of Title 12. May 17, 2022 - Page 544 of 549 Gillette clarifies that it will be in front of the board anyways. Lipnick asks what the current requirement for landscaping on site is. Spence says it varies by zone district, 60% of lot area is a common figure in many of the low residential districts. There is no public comment. Brian Gillette moved to forward a recommendation of approval. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6.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 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, Title 12 Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code to correct out of date references and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C22-0003) 10 min. Applicant:Town of Vail Planner:J onathan Spence Spence introduces the proposal. Rediker asks about the Titles being impacted. Spence says the changes will only be to Title 12. No public comment. Brian Gillette moved to forward a recommendation of approval. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.Approval of Minutes 3.1.March 28, 2022 P E C Results Reid Phillips moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (3-0). Abstain:(4)Rediker, J ensen, Lipnick, Perez 4.Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec tion during regular offic e 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 vis its that prec ede the public hearing in the Tow n of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to c hange, and c annot be relied upon to determine at w hat time the Planning and Environmental Commission w ill c onsider an item. Please c all (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department May 17, 2022 - Page 545 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2022, S econd Reading, An Ordinance A mending S ection 6-3D-4.a.4. of the Vail Town Code, Regarding Harassment P RE S E NT E R(S ): Matt Mire, Town Attorney AC T IO N RE Q UE S T E D O F C O UNC I L: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 10, S eries of 2022. B AC K G RO UND: The Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in P eople v. Moreno, 22 C O 15 (2022) held that certain language in the state harassment statute, C.R.S . § 18-9-111(1)(e), was an impermissible restriction on free speech. S TAF F RE C O M M E ND AT IO N: A pprove, approve with amendments or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 10, S eries of 2022. AT TAC H ME N TS: Description Ordinance 10, Series 2022 May 17, 2022 - Page 546 of 549 4/28/2022 \\FILESERVER2019\REDIRECTED$\SBIBBENS\DESKTOP\HARASSMENT UPDATE-O041222.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. 10 SERIES 2022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-3D-4.A.4. OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE, REGARDING HARASSMENT WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in People v. Moreno, 22 CO 15 (2022) held that certain language in the state harassment statute, C.R.S. § 18- 9-111(1)(e), was an impermissible restriction on free speech; and WHEREAS, Vail Town Code § 6-3D-4.A.4. contains substantially similar language to C.R.S. § 18-9-111(1)(e). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 6-3D-4.A.4. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6-3D-4: DISTURBING THE PEACE: A. Harassment: It is unlawful for a person to intentionally harass, annoy or alarm another person by: * * * 4. Initiating communication with a person in any medium, anonymously or otherwise, in a manner intended to threaten bodily injury or property damage, or make any any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene; or * * * 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 effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision May 17, 2022 - Page 547 of 549 2 4/28/2022 \\FILESERVER2019\REDIRECTED$\SBIBBENS\DESKTOP\HARASSMENT UPDATE-O041222.DOCX amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any 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 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 ______________, 2022 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the _____day of ______________, 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ___ day of ______________, 2022. _____________________________ Kim Langmaid, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk May 17, 2022 - Page 548 of 549 VA I L TO W N C O UNC I L A G E ND A ME MO I T E M /T O P I C: Adjournment 9:30 pm (estimate) May 17, 2022 - Page 549 of 549