HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC130027 Historic Research Documents . �' ]i � .� '� /��/,, �-.
��;. � ��,ZQ✓�S G.rau�t� ,'�"`�' �1C'✓� �l' �o�►�r�h, �fe�
,. , d�
�ORAINANCE NO. 3U
5eries of 1977
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE VAIL
MUI3ICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE TfIE ALLOWABLE
RESIDEIVTIAL UNITS IN ALL ZONING DISTRIC'PS
WITHIN TIIE TOTdDI WIiICH ALLOS^I FOR RESIDENTIAL
USE; CREATING A NEW ZONING DISTP,ICT 10 BE
KNOT�'1�1i AS TVIO F�IMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; CREATING A NEW
DEFINITION FOR "ACCOMb40DATION UNITS";
REZONING CERTAIN SPECIFIED PAitCELS OF
PROPERTY; SETTING PORTH DETAILS IN RELATION
TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING; ADID, AI�IENDING THE
Ok'FICIAL ZONING NIAP OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
WITH THE WITHIN ADOPTED AMEI3DMENTS
WHEI2EAS, the Town Council initiated certain changes
to the Zoning Code of �he Town of Vail to provide for new and
reduced residential densities;
;' the Town Council is of the opinion that the
2oning Code as presently constituted was in error in that it
allo�ved for residential densities and population numbers that
i
iwould potentially tax the public facilities of the Town of Vail,
the recreational facilities of the ski area, and would generally
degrade the environment;.
� because of the growth oE the Gore Valley, _
demand of the residents and visitors to the Gore Valley, and the
overall changes in the community, the Zoning Ordinance should be
amended to reduce the allo�Jable residential units within the
Town and amended as to specific parcels of_ property to bring
those parcels of property into conformity with the neighborhoods
in which they are located and the Town's comprehensive planning;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held pubiic hear-
ings concerning the proposed changes to the Zoning Code, considered
the same, and recommended approval of said changes to the Town
Council; and
FVHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare, to amend the
Zoning Code of the Town of Vail to reduce allowable residential
densities;
. • _ '/ '� . � �
� Or�. 30 Page 2
NOid, THE1tEFORE, BE IT ORDAIN�D BY THE TOFTN COliLICIL OP
THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 18.04.030 ACCOMMODATION UNIT of
the Vail Municipal Code is amended by the addition of the fol-
Iowing sentence:
Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one
half of a dwelling unit for purposes of calcula-
ting allowabl.e units per acre.
he Vaii Municipal Coue
is amended by the addition of a Chapter 18.13 entitled Tw0 FAIvIZLY �
PRIMARY/S£CONDARY RESIi3�NTIAL DISTRICT to read as follows:
i
Section 18.13.010. Purpose.
The Two-family Primary/5econdary Residential District
is intended to provide sites for single family; or
two-family residential uses in which one unit is a
larger primary residence and the second unit is a ;
smaller "caretaker apartment" together with such
public facilities as may appropriately be located
in the same district. The Two-family Primary/
Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure
adeguate light, air, privacy, and open space for each
dwelling commensurate with single family and two
family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable resi-
dential qualities of such sites by establishing appro-
priate site development standards.
Section 18.13.�20_ Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted:
1. Single far.miiy residential dwellings
2. Two-family residential dwellings
Section 18.13.030. Conditional Uses.
The following conditional uses sha11 be permitted,
subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in
accord with provisions of Chapter 18.60 of this Title:
1. Public uf.ility and public service uses.
� 2. Public buil.dings, grounds and facilities.
3. Public or private schools.
4. Public park and recreation facilities.
5. Ski lifts and tows.
Section 18.13.040. Accessory Uses.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted:
1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,
garages or carports, swimr.�ing pools, patios,
and recreation facilities customarily
incidental to single family and two £amily
residential uses. '
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of
a home occupation permit in accord wzth the
provisions of Chapter 18.58 of this Title.
. � , ,'s ' ��} � � .
' � ' Ord. 30 Page 3
� I
3. Other uses customarily incidental and ',
accessory to permitted or conditional
uses, and necessary for the operation
thereof.
Section 18.13.050. Lot Area and Site Dimensions.
The minimum lot or site area shall be 15,000 square
feet, and each site shall have a minimum frontage
of 30 feet. Each .site shall be of a size and shaoe
capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each
side, within its boundaries.
Section 18.13.060. Setbacks.
The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the
minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the min-
imum rear setback shall be 20 feet, or 10 feet if
one side setback is at least 20 feet; provided that
one foot of additional side and rear setback shall
be required for each two feet of building height over
15 feet.
Section 18.3.3.070. Aistances Between Buildings.
The minimum distance between a dwelling on a site
and a dwelling an an adjoining site shall be 20 feet;
provided that one foot of additional separation
between dwellings shall be required for each two
feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on
the basis of the average height of the proposed
buiiding.
_�`�"23 08�� ity CoYf�."�..
�
Not more than two dwelling units in a singla structure
shail be permitted on each site in conformance with
the provisions of this section. A total of not more
than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet for
the first 15,000 square feet of site area, olus not
more than 10 square feet of gross residential Eloor
area shall be permitted for each 100 square feet`ot
site area over 15,000 square feet not to exceed 30,000
square feet of site area, plus not more than £ive sguare
feet of gross residential floor area £or each 100 square
feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet.
On any site containing two dwelling units, one of the
units shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the allowable
total gross residentail floor area (GRFA) .
Section 18.13.OS0. Site Coverage.
Not more than 20 per cent of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings.
Section 18.13.100. Useable �pen Space.
A minimum of 500 square feet of useable open space ex-
clusive of rec�uired front setback areas shall be provided
at ground ievel for a single family dwelling. A minimum
of 350 square feet of useable open space exclusive of
required front setback area shall be provided at ground
level for each dwelling unit of a two family dwelling. `Ehe
minimum dimension of any area qualifying as useable open
space shall be 10 feet.
, � � � � '
• Ord. 30 Page 4 ',
Section 18.I3.110. Landscaping and Site Develonment_
At least 60 per cent of each site shall be landscaped.
The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ',
10 feet (width and length) with a minimum area not less
than 300 square feet.
Section 18.13.120. Parking.
Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Article ',
14 of this ordinance. '
Section 3. Section 18.12.050 LOT AREA AND SITE DIMEY- �
SIONS is amended by the increasing of the site area from 15,000 ,
square feet to 17,500 square feet. I
Section 4. Section 18.16.010 PUR.POSE of the Vail '
Municipal Code is amended by the changing of the allowable dwel- I',
ling units from 12 dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling units ,
per acre. �I
Section 5. Section 16.18.010 PURPOSE of the Vail �
Municipal Code is amended by changing the allowable dwelling ,
units from "15 to 30 dwelling units per acre" to a maxi.mum of II��
18 dwelling units per acre. ,
Section 6. Section 18.20.010 PURPOSE of the Vail I',
Municipal Code is amended to provide that the alloiaable densities '
i
will be changed from "densities ranging from 25 to 50 dwelling I
units per acre" to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. �'�
i
Section 7. Section 18_22.010 PURPOSE of the Vail ,
�
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a sentence to read I,
as follows: I
The public accommodation district is intended to �I
provide sites for'lodging units at densities not � ',
to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. ',
Section 8. Section 18.26.010 PURPOSE is amended by �
�
i
the addition of a sentence to read as follows: �'i
The commercial core da.strict is intended to include '!
sites for residential dwellings at densities not to '
exceed 25 dweiling units per acre. I
Section R. Section 18.28.100 DENSITY of the Vail ',
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a sentence to read �i
as follows:
The maximum allowable residential density within the
commercial service center shall be 18 dwelling units
per acre.
: O� 30 � Page 5 �
, Section 10. Pursuant to section 18.66.160 of the Vail
Municipal Code, those parcels described on Exhibit A of this
ordinance (which by this reference becomes a part hereof) arc
rezoned from the existing zones as shown on the Exhibit A to the
new zone as shown on Exhibit A.
Section 11. The Town Council specifically finds that
the procedures for the amendment of the Official Zoning Mao, the
amendment of Title 18 relating to zoning, and the rezoning of
certain properties within the Town of Vail as prescribed in
Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and
the Council hereby receives the report and recommendation of the
Planning Commission recommending the within described amendments
to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, amendments to
Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code, and rezonings of certain
specified properties.
Section 12. As provided in Section 18.08.030 of the
Vail Municipal Code, the 2oning Administrator is hereby directed
to promptly modify and amend the Official Zoning Map to indicate
the amendments herein contained.
Section 13. 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 remain-
ing portions of this ordinance, and the Town CounciZ hereby declares
it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub-
section, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, regardless of the fact
that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
pr phrases be declared invalid.
Section L4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of
any provision of the Vail Municipal Code shall apply only t� that
provision specifically repealed and shall not be construed to
apply to any other provision. The repeal or the repeal and zeen-
actment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which is accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effect-
ive date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action
or proceedinq as commenced under ar by virtue of the provision
repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
• � ' 0� 30 � Paae 6 �
Section 15. The Council hereby states that this ordi-
nance is necessary for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare.
INTRODLTCED, READ OEV FIRST READING, I�PPROVED AND ORDERED
I PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this lst day of P7ovember, 1977, and a
public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular
meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on
the 15th day of November, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the �iunicipal I
Buildinq of the Town of Vail. i
ATTES : r y r
` � �
/
To n C erk '
. . : � t� (� � I
EXHTBIT A i
Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 30 ,
SERIES OF 1977
I
The following parcels of land, described by ownership; metes and bounds, ,
or lot and block, shall be rezoned as indicated: ',
Everling, owner of lots 3, 4, and 5; and Bruni, owner of lots 6 and 7, Block I
1, IIighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition, shall be rezoned from Low Density I
Multiple-Family District to Residential Cluster District.
Jakob, owner of lot 1; Luke, owner of lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Bighorn I
Subdivision, 3rd Addition, shall be rezoned from Low Density Multiple- I
Family District to Residential Cluster District. '
I
Kidder, owner of lots 1 and 2; and Simpson, owner of lot 3, Block 7, Biahorn i
Subdivision, 3rd Addition, shall be rezoned from Low Density P4ultiple- �',
Family District to Residential Cluster District.
John Ha1Z, owner of Lot 6, Biock 2, Vail/POtato Patch, shall be zoned Medium ,
Density Multiple-Family District with a maximum of 30 units. i
John Hall, owner of Lot 34, Block 1, Vail/Potato Patch, shall be zoned ',
Medium Density Multipie-Family District with a maximum of 8 units and the �
owner shall quit claim deed to Town of Vail, any interest he may ,
have �o Tract C. I
Abe Shapiro, owner, Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing, shall be I
zoned Low Density Multiple--Family District with a maximum of 16 units.
',
, World S.ivinqs and Laan a parcel of land being a portion of the Soutl�east �
„ of Scction 12, Turuiship S Sauth, Range �0 West of the sixtii principal I
meridian, Ea91e County, Calorado, being more particularly described as
follaws: • '
Beginning at the Southeast corner of •said Section 12, being, a concrete . j
monument, in. place; th�nce due �:orth along the East line of.said Section '
i2 a distance of 178.32 feet to a point on the Southerly ri,ht-of-way
3ine of U.S. Fiighriay �to. 6; thence along said right-of-way 'ine the '�
following t�ro {2) courses:
- 1) t� 46'45'S3" l•t a distance of 125.�70 feet; ',
2j N 53'41 '37" �1 a distance of 257.98 feet to the True Point of Beginning: '
Thence (I 69'20'50" 4! a distance of 324.37 feet; thence S 74'23'53" V! ',
a distance of 7�0.77 feet to the approximate center line of Gore Creek; .
thence alcng said appi•oximate center line or Gore Creek the fol7owing
_ eight (8} courses:
l) N 43'S8'OS" �iJ a distance of 110.81 feet; ,
2) N 68']5'27" W a distance of 274.54 feet; . •
3) N 88•07'38° ld a distance of 1"60:40 feet; �
4j N 02•31 '46" E a .distance of 15&.59 feet; . '
5 y I4'S7'12° W a distance of 274.68 feet; - ,
6� N 43'OS'43° !J a distanee of i56.03 feet; . � ;
. 7) N 59'03'03" l� a distance of 473.73 feet; � I
8) N 82'42'03" W a distance of 143.13 feet; '
. • �
• Thence. N 3b'18'23" E a distance of 163.55 feet to a point on said Southerly
right-of-aray line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence S 53'41 '37" c along said
right-of-t•ray line 1494.41 feet to the true point of beginn�ing, containing ,
5.733 acres more or less. � Shall ;be rezoned rrom t�ledium Density
t�ultip]e-family to Lo�•� Density I�lultiple-Family District. , "� �
. ,
,
I�I
. "'�Pag�+.2 � � �
i:�:l�ibit " A "
Or.dinance No. 30
. Series of 1977 li
I
• Gore Ran9e II, Ltd. a part of the SE/4, Section 12, T.5S., R.30'r!, 6th P.F1. !
described as folloi�rs: Corrmencing at a point on south lin� of Section 12, �,
• T. SS., R. 801�l, 6th P.M. a�hicE� point lies S 39'53'24" E, a distance of i
. 612.16' from the S/4 corner of said Section 12;'thence N 41 '34'00" 4!, a '
distance of 93.65'; thence S 86'02'00" ,J, a distance of 90.86'; thence �'
N i6']8'30" !�!, a distance of 753.93'; thence �V 24'S6'50° ld, a distance �',
Of 13I.70'; thence N 5b'57'20" tJ, a distance of 19.G0'; thence N 48'34'04"
E; a distance of534.11 ';. thence in an easterly �irection along the south ,
right-of-��1ay on the county road to the northernnost carner ofi Biohorn '
7ownhouses, a subdivision; thence S 31'23'Ou" b1, a distance of 156.26'; ,
thence S Q6`42'C4" E, a distznce of 207.11' to the sou+.:l� line of said ',
Sectian 12; and thence in a «�esterly direction a]ong the south line of I
said�Section lz to the point of.beginning, containing 7.971 acres n,�re �
or less. shall �be rezoned from Lo�v Density Multiple-Family District i
to Residential Cluster District. �I
!
The foLlowing lots shall be rezoned from Two-Family Residential Zone ',
District (duplex} to Primary/Secondary Residential Zonc District. �
New Pulis Subdivision �
Lots 1-21, Vail Valley 3rd Filing_ ',
Mill Creek Circle
Lots 1-19, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing.
Beaver Dam, Forest and Rockledge Roads ',
Lots 1-41, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing-
Lots 1-6, Hlock 1; Lots 1-10, Block 2; Lots 1-6, Block 3; Lots
1-5, Block 4; Vail Vil2age 3rd Filing; '
Lower Forest Road
Lots 1-15, Block 1; Lots 1-8, Block 2; Vail Villaqe 6th Filing.
Golf Course Area
Lots 1- , Block 4; Lots 1-6, Block 5; Lots 1-14, Block 6; Lots
1-3, Block 7; Lots 1-4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing.
Lots 1-10, Block 1, Vail Villaqe 8th Filing•
Potato Patch
Lots�-33, Block 1; Lots 2-5, Block 2� Lots 10-12, a Resubdivision
of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail/Potato Patch,
Lots 1-7, Vail/POtato Patch Second Filing, a Resubdivision of Lots 1
and 2, Vai1/POtato Patch.
Bighorn
Lots 1-16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition
� Lots 1-6, BorwicFi Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4,
Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition.
Lots 1-8, Block 4; Lots 1-19, Block 5; Lots 1-4, Block 6; Lots
1-20, Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition.
.. � . _,_ .. _ . ..,
,_� .. . �._ _ . _.. ....._ ... . _. .... . .�l.. .._,.
NTRODUCED, READ , ADOPTED AfVO ENACTED Oy SECONO READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISNED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE OWLY) THIS ��J'� DAY
OF /UIl7.�O�L�l/1.--�19�.
. i
;
OR
ATTES7:
/��,� � ��r�
TOWN CLERK
�
I
MEMO '
� T0: Terrell J. Minger/Town CounciZ
FROM: Department of Co�nunity Development ',
�
DATE: 30 August 1977 ',
i '
iR.E; Summary o3 Zoning Amendments to Implement
Growth Management
i
I
The recommendations of th� Citzens Growth Management i
Co[nmittee have been translated into (1) amendments to the '
Zoning Ordinance, and (2) downzoning of specific parcels. !,
This Memo summarizes the proposed amendments and
downzoning for your preliminary review. I
The Planning Commission has reviewed these recomtnend- ,
ations. A Public Hearing has been advertised for Thursday, ,
September I5. ,
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT-ZONING AMENDMENTS: '
1. Add to the definition of "Accommodation units"
the phrase, "Each accommodation unit shall be '
counted as one-half (�) of a dwelling unit for
purposes o� calculating allowable units per acre". �
(Art. 2.600) �
2. Create a "�vo-family Primar Secondar Residential"
Zone. A copy of the proposed Zone is attached)
The ma,jor points will be:
a. One unit is a larger pr3.mary residence
and the second is a smaller "caretaker
apartment".
b. Minimum lot or site area will be 15,000
square feet.
c. If the structure is a duplex, one of the
units shall not exceed one-third (1/3)
of the allowable gross residential
floor area (GRFA).
3. Two-family residential: Propose increasing minimvm
lot area from 15,000 square Peet to 17,500 square
� feet. (Art. 3.501).
. I
',
Page 2
. •Summary of Zona.ng Amendment to Implement
Growth Management August 30, 1S7?
I
' 4. Low-density Multiple Fa.mily: Propose reducing '
density from present 12 dwelling units per �
acre to 9 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 4.100). �
5. Medium densit Multi le Famil : Propose reducing I
density 3rom present range of 15-30 dwelling I
units per acre to maximum of 18 dwelling units I
per acre. (Art. 5.100). I
�
6. High density 2�ultiple Family: Propose reducing '
density Yrom present range of 25-50 dwelling �I
units per acre to maximum of 25 dwelling units I
per acre. (Art. 6.100).
,
7. Public Accommodations: Add a maximum density of ,i
25 dwelling units per acre. P.A. Zone now has I
i no maximum density except GRFA. (Art. 7.100). �
�
f ' 8, Commercial Core 1: Planning Commissions sub- I
� committee has deadline of September 25th for II
making recommendations to Council.
9. Commercial Core 2: Add "Horizontal Zoning" I
and sets a maximum density of 25 dwelling
units per acre. (Art. 9•100 and 9.300). ,
10. Commercial Service Center: Sets the maximum ',
density at 18 dwellzng units per acre. CSC
Zone now has no maximum density. {Art. 10.605). I
11. Special Development Districts: '
a. Bighorn Juntion (SDD3) : The current
allowable density is 15.28 dwelling
units per acre maximum which fa11s '
into the MDMF range. Proposal is to
reduce this density to the current
LDMF standard of 12 dwelling units
per acre; all other comparable '
properties are �lso being downzoned
approximately the same percentage'.
�
i
� Page 3
Summary of Zoning Amendment to Implement
Growth Mauagement August 30, 1977
The following chart indicates allowable and
proposed new densities.wi.�h3�_SAD3:
u���—
�,.� ., ,� ;�.�
"'�;= �_�
�`..;°°..,. :.o...<� �.,,«w ..a.�... ,.,..<...
���
a 111iV[�n11� �� L �� � •
... D�unwK u u �� t� l� ��0 .
Our general recommendation has been to not reduce
GRFA; however, we believe this SDD warrants another look as
the allowable GRFA ia development area B is .50 which is very
close to HDMF. The GRFA for areas A & C is .35 which does not
pose a particular problem.
b. Vai1 Village Inn (SDD6) - The alIowabie
density is in line with proposed reductions.
c. The Mark (SDD7) - The allowable density
� i.s approximately 5 units per acre in excess
of the proposed reduction. At the time the
Mark was be9.ng considered, the proposed
ratio �or calculating density was 2�
acco�nodation units for each dwelling unit,
this has now been reduced to 2 which creates
the excess. This is one project which must
be considered separateZy - is it worth
allowing approximately 21 excess units
to get a much need Town Convention facility
at private expense?
B. PRQPOSED DOiHNZONING OF SPECIFIC FARCELS
A number of parcels have been selected to be
downzoned. The following chart and map locate the parcels
and gi.ve information about each:
� I
� TWO-FAMILY
PRIh4ARY/SECONDARY R�STDENTIAL DISTRICT
SECTION 3.100 PURPOSES
The Two-iamily Primary/Secondary Residential District is
intended to provide sites for single �amily;or two-family
residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary
residence and the second unit is a smaller '"caretaker
apartment" together with such public iaci2ities as may
appropriately be located in the same district. The �vo-
family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended
to ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space
for each dwelling commensurate with single family and two
family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential
qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site
development standards.
SECTION 3.200 PERbiITTED USES
The following uses shall be permitted:
1. Single family residential dwellings
� 2, Two-family residential dwellings
SECTION 3.3�0 CQNDITIONAL USES
The following conditinal uses shall be permitted, subject to
issurance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with provisions I
of Article 18 of this ordinance:
1. Public utility and public service uses.
2. Public buildings, grounds, and faciliites.
3, Public or private schools. j
4. Public park and recreation facilities. I
5. Ski lifts and tows. ',
I
SECTION 3.400 ACCESSORY USES II
The following accessory uses shall be permitted: I
1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages '
or carports, swimming pools, patios, and recreation ,
facilities customarily incidental to single family
and two family residential uses. '
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home '
occupation permit a.n accord with the provisions
� of Section 17.300 of this ordinance.
i
Page 2
� � Two-family Primary/Secondary
Residential District
� '��
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory �I
to permitted or condita.onal uses, and necessary for i
the operation thereof,
SECTION 3.500 DEVELOPA�ENT STAI3BARDS
3.501 i,ot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be 15,000
square feet, and each site shall have a
minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be
o� a size and shape capable of enclosing a square
area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries.
3.502 Setbacks
The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the
minimtun side setback shall be 10 feet, and the
minimum rear setback shall be 20 feet, or 10 feet
if one side setback is at least 20 £eet; provided
that one foot of additional side and rear setback
sha].1 be required for each two feet o� building
� height over 15 feet,
3.503 Distances Between Buildings
The minimum distance between a dwelling on a site
and a dwelling on an adjoining site shaJ.l be 2Q feet;
provi@ed that one foot of additional separation between
dwellings shall be required Yor each two �eet of building
height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the
average height of the proposed building.
3.505 Density Control
Not more than two dwelling units in a single structure
shall be permitted on each site in conformance with
the provisions of this section. A total of not more
than 25 square feet of gross resi.dential floor area
(GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet
for the first 15,000 square feet of site area, plus
not more than 10 square feet of gross xesa.dential
floor area shall be permitted for each I00 square
feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not to
exceed 30,000 square feet of site area, plus not
more than five square feet of gross residential
iloor area for each 100 square feet of site area
in excess of 30,000 square feet.
�
Page 3
Two-�amily Primary/secondary
Residential Distric�
On any site containing two dwelling units, one oY the units
shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the allowable total gross
residential Yloor area (GRFA).
�
I'
,I
�
� \
�� j�
. ��
to��� of uail
, box i00 office of the town manager ,
vail,colorado 81fi57 '
1303) 476-5s13 September 7, 1977
Dear Property Owner:
Over the past two years, the Town of Vail a.nd many interested
citizens have been studying the implications of gTOw�ih in the
Gore Valley. I
We gathered a great deal of base data and after an in-depth ��
study, determined that there are a nvmber of problems compounded ,
by too much grow�h. � • �
The problems and research became so complex that the Town '
Counci.l felt it was important to seek extensive citizen input.
A Citi.zen's Committee on Growth Management consisting of 32
� people from throughout the Gore Valley and the surrounding area
were appointed. The Comm9.ttee met many times over a period of
about eight roonths to analyze the problems and recommend soluti:ons.
One of the first conclusions reached was that we somehow
•had ta restrict the uitimate population to a manageable level
through �comprehensive down-zoning. The enc7.osed legal notice
reflects the recommendations of the Growth Management Committee, •
the Town of Vail Council, Planning Commission and staff. We ,
feel the proposals are fair, in the best interests of the Gore
Valley and will. Tesult in a better qual�ity of life:: .:
Si.ncerely,
DEPARTh IdT OF
COMMU Y DEVELOPMENT
. s �
i na S. Toughi2l
Zoning Administrator
. DST/di
�� .
i
�
MINUTES
VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1977
3:Q0 P.M.
Present: Gerry White
Sandy Mi11s
Dudley Abbott
Ron Todd
Ed Drager
Bill Hanlon
Absent: Pam Garton
Staff Present: Diana Toughil1
Terrell Minger
Jim Rubin
Vaii Associates Re uest for S ecial Develo ment Districts for
Redeve opment of Gondo7a Bul7dings I and II. Motion to Post-
pone Indefinitely at Request of App]icant.
Gerry White made the first motion that this item on .the agenda
be postponed indefintely. Dudley Abbott seconded the motion;
there was no discussion. It was approved unanimously by the
r2st of the members of the Commission.
Growth Management
Terrell Minger, Town Manager, discussed and summarized the
growth of Vail and the proposals of the Town and citizens to '
control it to maintain a good quality of life. Growth manage-
ment studies have been made 9n different areas of the county
and in the 6ore Valley. Proposals for the Town of Vail have
been made, which have been put into action on the agenda today:
1} Amendments to the existing zoning ordinances which would
reduce the maximum number of units per acre in certain districts;
and 2) down-zoning of over 300 specific parcels of land
throughout the Tawn of Yail .
��
'
�i
-2-
� Planninq Commission Resolution No. 1, Adopting Phase I of the_
Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Diana Toughill discussed and summarized this Planning Commission
Resolution. Gerry White made the first motion that Resolution
No. 1 be adopted as Phase I of the Town of Vail Comprehensive
Pian. BillHanlon seconded the motion, and it was voted on
unanimously. (Dudley Abbott was absent at the time the vote
was taken. )
Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to Implement Growth Management.
Diana Toughill discussed and summarized this item on the agenda.
It is outlined in the Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments to
Implement Growth Management. Comments were asked fram the public.
Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Item 2 of the Summary
of Proposed Zon9ng Amendments to Imp7ement Growth Management
• to create a "Two-family Primary/Secondary ResidentiaT" zone
be adopted. Gerry White seconded the motion, and it was unani-
mously approved.
Gerry White made the first motion that Item 8 of the Summary
to postpone the modifications to Commerc9al Core No. 1 be
adopted. It was seconded by Bill Hanlon, and voted on unanimously.
Gerry White made the first motion that Items 1,3,4,5,6,7,9, and
10 of the Summary of Proposed Zoning Amendments to Implement
Growth Management be adopted. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion,
and it was voted on unanimously.
DoWn-Zoning of Specific Parce7s to Implement Growth Management
At this time the Commission heard specific protests from the
owners opposed to down-zoning of their particular parcels of
land: I
� Item #7 - Racquet Clu� - MDMF - Mr. WaTter Kirsh �I
8i11 Hanlon made the first motion that the Racquet Club be ,
allowed to utilize the remaining empty space at the currently I
,
i
Ili
i
;
j � _3_
allowable density in proportion to the space that already has
buildings on it under the condition that the project not exceed
247 units. Gerry White seconded the motion. A11 members voted
in favor of the motion with the exception of Sandy Mills.
Item #5 - Vail Investment Properties
Craig Folson, Esq. represented Va91 Inves�Cment Properties. He
objected to the reduction in density from LDMF to RC and the
reasons for hi�s objections were outlined in his 7etter to the
Planning Commission, dated September 28, 1977. After a dis-
cussion, Gerry White made the first motion that the Vail In-
vestment Properties be rezoned from LDMF to RC. Sandy Mills
seconded the motion. A11 membera of the Commission voted in
favor of the motion, except for Ron Todd.
- Item #2 - Gore Range
• Diana Tough911 made a statement to be entered irrto the record
from the Gore Range people who wanted to build employee hous-
ing. After a meeting with the Town Council and the Design Re-
view Board, they have withdrawn their request for the employee
housing project and requested that the Commission proceed with
down-zoning from Low Density to Residential Cluster. Dudley
Abbott made the first motion that Gore Range II, Ltd. 's request
for withdrawl of their housing project be acce�ted. It was
seconded by Ron Todd and voted on unanimously with the excep-
tion of 8i11 Hanlon and Gerry White who were absent at the time I
of the voting. �I
Item #3 - Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky I�
Mr. Zabinsky discussed why he did not want his land rezoned ',
from LDMF to RC. After a discussion, Dudley Abbott made the I
first motion that Mr. Zabinsky's land be rezoned from LOMF to ',
RC. Sandy Mills seconded the motion, and all voted in favor
. of it except for Ed Drager. (Ron Todd was absent at the time '
of the voting.)
�
-4-
�
Item #11 - Lots 2, 3, Block 8, Bighorn 3rd
The Commission heard from Erica McCall about why she is pro-
testing the down-zoning of the Vail East Lodging parcel of
land. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the land re-
main in the LDMF zone rather than be changed to RC. 6erry
White seconded the motion. Dudley Abbott, Ed Drager and
Gerry White voted in favor of the motion; Bill Hanlon and
Sandy Mills voted against it; Ron 7odd was absent at the time
the vote was held.
Item #14 - Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch
Item #15 - Lot 34, Block 1, Potato Patch
Jay Peterson, Esq. represented John Hall who owns the parti-
cular parcels of land. He proposed what he felt was a reason-
able compromise which is: to keep the MDMF zoning and set a unit
• maximum for each parcel . 6erry White �ade the first motion
that Lot 6 and Lot 34 remfan MDMF rather than RC- with the compromise
to allow a maximum unit limit of 30 units on lot 6 and B units
on lot 34 repectively with any rights the developer has in Tract
C to be quit-claimed to the Town of Vail . Al1 voted in favor of
the motion except for Sandy Mills and Bill Hanlon.
Item �6 - Weisen (nee Ward) Property
A request that this 7and remain LDMF rather than be rezoned to
RC was made by Jay Peterson, Esq. who represented the owner.
Sandy Mills made the first motion that the request be denied.
Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. Three members of the Commis�
sion voted against the motion (Ron Todd, Dudley Abbott, and
Ed Drager). The motion failed, and the property will be recom-
mended to remain LDMF.
�
-5-
.
Item #13 - Lat A-7, Lions Ridge lst
Bi]1 Hanlon made the fjrst motion that this property remain at
LDMF rather than be rezoned to RC. Dudley Abbott seconded the
motion, and it was voted on unanimously with the stipulation
that the correct acreage figure of the land be determined by a
survey.
Item #10 - Lots 1, 2, 3, BTock,�, Bighorn 3rd
This appeal was telephoned in at fi:00 P.M. by Bill Ldke, Septem-
ber 29, 1977 since the gentleman did not receive the information
by mail until September 29. Sandy Mil]s made fihe f9rst motion
that this appeal to remain at LDMF rather than down-zoning to
RC be denied. Dudley Abbott seconded it; and it was voted on
unanimously.
• Written protests from the owners Opposed to Down Zoning of
their Part9cular Parcels of Land
�16(a) - Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village, 13th Filing
Abe Shapiro submitted a written request as a compromise that
this land remain LDMF with I6 units maximum. The first motion
was made by Dudley Abbott and seconded by Ron Todd that this
land rem�in LUMF with a 16 unit maximum rather than changing
to RC. It was voted on unanimously.
#12 - Lot 6-7, Lions Ridge, lst
LRB submitted a site plan prior to the hearing and requested
z�ning approval. Diana Toughill noted for the record that the
Suhmission did not contain sufficient information and zoning
approval was denied. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that
that appeal that this land not change to RC but remain at
LDMF be denied. It was seconded by Ron Todd and was voted on
i
unanimously. li
� I�
I
�
�
-6-
�
Written Protests from Owners Opposed to the Rezoning of Twa-
family Residential (Duplex) to the new Primary/Secondary Zone.
Protest from Mr. Lazarus
Dudley Abbott made the first motion that this request be denied. ,
Ron Tadd seconded it, and it was voted on unanimously with the
exception of Bill Hanlon and Gerry White who were absent at the
time of voting.
Protest from Mr. Shepard
Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Mr. Shepard's protest
against the rezoning of his property be denied. Ron Todd
seconded the motion, and it was voted on unanimously by the
other members of the Commission with the exception of Gerry
White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting.
Protest from Col. Browne
Ron Todd made the first motion that Col . Browne's protest against
. the rezoning af his property be denied. Dudley Abbott secondeQ �'I
the motion, and it was voted on unanimously with thezexceptfion ',
of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who were absent at the time of the I�
voting. ',
Tite Planning Commission voted on the Rezoning of the following '
parcels of land on which no protests were filed:
1. Dudley Abbott made the first motion that Lots 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, Block 1, Bighorn 5ubdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from
Low Density Multiple-Family district to Residential Cluster
district. Sandly Mills seconded the motion, and it was voted
on unanimously with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon
who were dbsent at the time of the voting.
� 2. Ron Todd made the first motion that lots 1, 2 , and 3, Block �
Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from Low Density
Multiple Family district to a Residential Cluster district.
Sandy Mills made the second motion, and it was voted on unani-
,
-7-
• mously with the exception of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon who
were absent at the t9me of the voting.
3. Ron Todd made the first motion that lots 1, 2, and 3, Block
7, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition be changed from a Low
Density Multiple-Family district to a Residential Cluster district.
It was seconded by Dudley Abbott and voted on unanimously by the
other members of the Commission with the exception of Bi] 1 Hanlon
and Gerry Whtte, who were absent at the time of the voting.
The Planning Commission voted on the rezoning of all the lats
set forth in the Public Notice which were proposed to be re-
zoned from two-farniiy residential Zone district (duplex) to the
new Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Ron Todd made
. the first motion to rezone the two-family residential zone dis-
trict (duplex) to the new Primary/Secondary Residential Zone
District of all the lots set forth in the Public Rotite published
in the Vail Trail on September 9, 1977. Dadley Abbott seconded
the motion, and it was unanimously approved by the other members
of the Commission with the exception of Gerry White and Bill �
�
Hanlon who were absent at the time of the voting. '
Dudley Abbott made the first motion that the World Savings and '
Loan parceT of land described by ownership and metes and baunds
be rezoned as indicated in the Public Notice of September 9 ,
1977. Ron Todd seconded the motion, and it was unanimously
approved by the other members of the Commission witft the excep-
tion of Gerry White and Bill Hanlon, who were absent at the time
of the voting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
•
• �4EMORANDUM
TO PLANNING CObfMISSION
FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE 24 A4ARCH 1978
RE Sam Cook Application for GRFA Variance
Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing
The applicant, Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh Scott, representing
Sam Cook, has requested a gross residential floor area (GRFA)
variance to correct existing uninhabitable storage of 81 sq. ft.
and to add 30 sq. ft. to provide a bedroom area 111 sq. ft.
Existing residence is non-con�orming under the current
Zoning Ordinance. The lot area is 19,352 sq. ft. , allo�vable
GRFA is 4,185 sq. ft. , existing residence is 4,338 sq. ft.
The structure with the proposed addition is 264 sq. ft. in excess
of permitted density.
CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (Section 18.62.060)
1. The xelationship of the requested variance to
other existing or poten�ial uses and structures in
the vicinity.
• The requested variance would make only a minor modification '
to the exterior of the existing structure. It would, however, ',
make this unit inconsistent with other units in the neighboring ',
area by allowing a greater amount of GRFA than is permitted lay I
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation
is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain
the objectives of this Ordinance without grant of
special privilege.
Due to the extent that this variance will exceed the GRFA
requirement, we do feel that this would be a grant of special
privilege. The adda.tional 330 sq. ft. , would result in the
GRFA exceeding what is allowed by approximately 6.3p. No other
GRFA variances have been granted in the area. Dick Elias was
denied a similar variance last year.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities:
. An additi.onal bedroom would provide the possibility of
housing one or more additional people. This in itself does
not seem significant; however, multi.plied by �he number of units
in the Valley could be a substantial number of adflitional people.
Page 2.
• MEMO - Sam Cook Application for GRFA Variance
Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing
FTNDINGS:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other propertzes classi�ied
in the same District.
See Item 2, under Consideration of Factors. There
have been no other GRFA variances granted in this area.
2. That the granting of the variance could be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
See Item 1. , under Consideration of Factors. Granting
of this variance could set a negative precedent by allowing
excessively iarge houses to be built or allowing additions on
houses which already exceed or are very close to the GRFA
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Many of the structures
in the go11 course area are at or over the maximum GRFA.
• 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons:
(c) the strict or literal interpretation and enforce-
ment of the specified regulation would not
deprive the applicant or privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the
same District.
Structures in the residential neighborhood are generally
in compliance with the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
This house as it presently exists is over this requirement.
We therefore, feel that a further variance is not warranted
and +vould not deprive the applicant of privileges en�oyed by
owners o3 other properties in this District.
�
The Department of Community Development strongl5� I
recommends denial of the variance sought �or the reasons stated I
above. �`e also feel that there flas been no hardship shown in
the request.
•
MINUTES
. PLANNING COMMISSION
March 28, 1978
3;00 P,M.
Members Present: Ed Drager, Chairman
Sandy Mi71s
Pam Garton
Gerry White
Roger Ti1 kemeier
Ron Todd
Staff Present: Diana Toughill
Allen Gerstenberger
Sam Cook re resented b Pierce Briner & Fitzhu h Scott re uest for
Gross Residential F oor Area Variance to allow additlon to non-con orming
residence on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing,
The first item on the agenda was a request for Gross Residential
F7oor Area (GRFA} variance to allow an addition to a non-confornring residence
on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Uillage 7th Filing by Sam Cook represented by
Pierce, Briner & Fitzhugh Scott, Architects. Mr; Briner introduced Mr.
Sam Cook to the Commission as the purchaser of the home previously owned
by Betty Seibert. He advised the Commission that they had spoken to
neighbors in the vicinity of the house about the plans for the bedroom,
and that the neighbors did not ffnd it offensive to them. He then shovred
� the drawings to the Corrmission for their review, He explained the problem
as that due to the size of the family members, the bedroom is now too cramped
to be comfortable. The plan is to utilize some of the attic space to increase
the ceiling height and to build an adjoining bath to the bedroom by building
aver the existing stairwell. They are asking for lll sq, ft. greater GRFA.
This is a family residence and no part of it is for rental.
In answer to a question, Diana Toughill explained that this wauld
have conformed before the changes made in the Zoning Ordinance approximately
a year ago. Ron Todd questioned the figures given in the memo. Diana
Toughill will check on this.
Mr. Cook then addressed the Commission. He explained the interior
of the house as to the existing bedrooms; there are 3 bedrooms on the
ground level, the master bedroom is on the f9rst floor and the only fullsize
bedroom in the house. !ie explained that the bedroom p7anned for expansion has
an extremely low ceiling and needs to be made habitab3e for adults. He
feels that he is really trying to bring this bedroom up to code, as it is
not comfortabiy habitable in its present state, He a7so advised the Commission
that he is not building an additional bedroom, but just adding space to the
existing bedroom within the structure.
Roger Tilkemeier feels that this is a practical solution to a practical
problem and made a Motion to approve. Ron Todd agreed, and seconded.
• Gerry White feels that this would be a dangerous precedent and he
agrees with the staff recommendation against granting this request , Sandy
Mills has much the same feeling, she stated that this request is simiiar to
the request from Dick Elias that was turned down by the Commission.
I
�II
I
Page 2
PLANNIN6 C4MMISSION
. MINUTES - 3/28/78
Ron Todd feels that it is fair to ask for the height addition
to the ceiling in the bedroom, and he doesn't feel that this would be setting
a precedent, Ne added that this would be improving on what is already there,
and it wil7 not add people as is mentioned in the staff inemo, He added that
the height of the ceiling couid be a hardship relative to the stature of the
fami ly,
Pam Garton asked about the Antlers addition of 80 sq. ft. GRFA.
Diana Toughill referenced the request to enclosing balconies in Sandstone
that would add additional GRFA to enlarge dining room space and not add
additiona] people and was turned down by the Commission, Pam Garton agrees
with the staff and addressed the fact that there is no tecfinical basis within
the Ordinance to allow this GRFA addition, especially when reviewing other
requests that have been turned down by the Commission,
Ed brager felt that perhaps Mr. Tilkemeier was not aware of
the ramifications regarding approval of this plan, and read from the
memo the consideration of factors. Mr. Tilkemeier stated that he would
amend the Motion for approval to state that this addition would resotve an
illegal structure and that their application will aTlow the structure to meet
code, Ran Todd again seconded this amended Motion,
Gerry White feels there are problems with many other buildings
in Vail that don't meet code, and that approval of this application would not
• correct these prablems, Roger Tilkemeier reiterated that he feels their
application is a reasonable solution.
Sandy Mills, again mentioned the Antlers example on space already
constructed -- feels that people could do things i.11egally and then come in
for a variance. Ron Todd doesn't feel this is the same type of case at a17.
Mr, Cook again took the floor to address the Commission. Ne does
not feei this application would set a precedent, he only wants to bring this
room up to code for hea7thful habitation. He feels the request is very
reasonable and that this in no way is a violation. The Elias case, as
he is acquatnted with it, is not relevant; and neither are the balconies and
loft areas as discussed by Commission �embers, Roger Tilkemeier agrees with
Mr. Cook and maintains the Motion to approve the request for Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA} Variance to a17ow the addition to a non-conforming residence
on Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. The vote tallied wit� Roger
Tilkemeier and Ron Todd for approval, Ron Todd seconding the Motian made above,
Ed Drager, Sandy Mi11s, Pam Garton and Gerry White voted against approva7,
This request� by vote, is disapproved,
Town of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow multi-purpose structure
to cover existing ice skating_rink located on Lot 5, Block 1� Resubdjvision of
L'ot 1, Block l, Vail LionsHead 2nd Fi7ing.
.
—�f----- -- --- _ _ —
.
� � � .
�� ORDINANCE N0. 22
Series of 1979
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ALLOW ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNIT IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AND TWO-FAMILY PRIM4RY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT ON LOTS OF LESS TNAN 15,000 SQUARE
FEET; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS THERETO; AND
SETTING FORTN DETAILS RELATING THERETO;
WHEREAS, presently all lots in the Two-Family Residential
and Primary/Secondary Residential District are permitted two dwellings;
WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that lots of less
than 15,000 square feet would be over-crowded with two units;
WHEREAS, only under certain exceptions should there be more
than one dwelling unit on a lot less than 15,000 square feet;
� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
� OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
i
I Section 1. The Vail Municipal Code is amended by the repeal
and reenactment of Section 18.12.090 and 18.13.080 to read as follow:
18.12.090 DENSITY CONTROL (Two Family Residential District)
(A) Not more than a total of two dwelling units in
i a single structure shall be permitted on each
site with only one dwelling unit permitted on
I lots of less than 15,000 square feet, and not
more than 25 square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each
100 square feet for the first 15,000 square feet
( of site area, plus not more than 10 square feet
of gross residential floor area shall be permitted
for each 100 square feet of site area over 15,000
square feet not to exceed 30,000 square feet of
site area, plus not more than five square feet of
gross residential floor area for each 100 square
feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet.
No two family residential lot except those totally
in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the flood
plain, or those of less than 15,000 square feet
shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied
by a two-family dwelling.
(B) The Planning and Environmental Cormnission may grant
an exception to the restrictions of this Section
relating to lots of less than 15,000 square feet
to allow the addition of a second dwelling unit if
the following criteria are met:
(1) The second unit shall not exceed 1/3 of the
total GRFA allowed on the lot; and
(2) The Planning and Environmental Corrrnission shall
find that the granting of the exception will not
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the area in which the subject
property is situated; and
�
I
^Y �
.�
� OrcJinan�o. 22 . Page Two �
(3) That the applicant shall agree to in writing:
(a) That the Secondary dwelling unit shall not
be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately
from the primary unit.
(b) That the secondary dwelling unit shall not
; be leased or rented for any period of less
than 30 consecutive days; and that it shall
be rented only to tenants who are residents
of the Upper Eagle Valley or who are full-time
employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The "Upper
' Eagle Valley" shall be deemed to include the Gore
Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, 6ilman, Eagle-Vail ,
� and Avon and their surrounding areas. A "Full-
� time employee" is a person who works an average
i of 30 hours per week.
(c) That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be
! divided into any form of time-shares, interval
ownership or fractional fee; and
� (d) That a declaration of covenants and restrictions
� shall be filed of record in tfie office of the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved
by the Town Attorney for the benefit af the Town
to insure that the restrictions herein shall run
with the land; and
(4) No such exception shall be granted unless a written
application has been submitted to and considered by
the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Code
of the Town of Vail.
18.13.080 DENSITY CONTROL (Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential
District)
(A) Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single
structure shall be permitted on each site, with only one
dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than 15,000 square
feet, and not more than 25 square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square
feet of site area, plus not more than 10 square feet of
gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each
100 square feet of site area over 15,000 square feet not
to exceed 30,000 square feet of site area, plus not more
than five square feet of gross residential floor area for
each 100 square feet of site area in excess of 30,000 square
feet. No two family residential lot except those totally in
the red hazard ava1anche zone, or the flood plain, or those
of less than 15,000 square feet shall be so restricted that
it cannot be occupied by a two family primary/secondary
residential dwelling.
(B) The Planning and Environmental Comnission may grant an
exception to the restrictions of this Section relating
to lots of less than 15,000 square feet to allow the
addition of a second dewlling unit if the following
criteria are met:
(1) The second unit shall not exceed 1/3 of the total
GRFA allowed on the lot; and
(2) The Planning and Environmental Commission shall find
that the granting of the exception will not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area in which the subject property is situated; and
i
.:
, , --
. ,. � . �
• �Ordinance No. 22 Page Three
(3) The applicant shall agree in writing:
(a) That the second dwelling unit shall not be sold,
transferred, or conveyed separately from the pri-
mary unit; and
(b) That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be
leased or rented for any period of less than
30 consecutive days; and that it shall be rented
only to tenants who are residents of the Upper
Eagle Valley or who are full-time employees in
the Upper Eagle Valley. The "Upper Eagle Valley"
shall be deemed to include the 6ore Valley,
Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon
and their surrounding areas. A "Full-time employee"
is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week.
(c) That the secondary dwelling unit shall not be divided
into any form of time-shares, interval ownership or
fractional fee; and
(d) That a declaration of covenants and restrictions
shall be filed of record in the office of the
i Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved
� by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town
to insure that the restrictions herein shall run
with the land; and
(4) No such exception shall be granted unless a written
application has been submitted to and considered by
the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Code
of the Town of Vai 1.
I
, �. - - - - --
, � t • �
;
ORDINANCE N0. 22 PAGE 4
j
�
I
I '
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence,
, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council
hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each
, part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
i�
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections,
- subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
i
Section 3. The Council hereby finds, determines and
� � declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the
I health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
� , thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
• PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL THIS �Lday of JLiLY , 1979, and
_ a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular
meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on
�
' the 7th day of AUGUST , 1979.
, �
ayor
�
ATTEST:
' �,-
��---���'-�//1�.�������
INTRODUCED OIJ SECOND READIN6, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE OrlLY THIS 7th DAY OF AUGUST, 1979. •
�
� .
ATTES� AYOR
� �
� . � -� ��-� _`"�
� � -
TOWN LE K
�
PF7C Meeting Minutes 5-22-79
Pag� Five
. No. 8 Re-desigi landscape plan to include a inbre com�r2hensive
landsca,pe �ro�ram.
Jim Rubin said the develope.r is in the pzocess of ha.ving this done.
No. 9 Driveway slapes not to exceed'8%.
Jim Rubin sa.id they agreed to this.
No. 10 The arinor chan s in the locaticn of 13uilclings in tioth Phase I
and Pha.�e II as will be inclicated on the revised site plan.
Jim Rubin said they l�.d a�eed to this.
In addition to the above the StaYY also requested that the general contracto�
s-ub¢rdt engineering drawings for all retain3ng wal].� on the si.te si�ed by a
licenaed structural engineer. They also requested that imnediate attention
be given to the obtaining of a Street G�t Per�t fram the Colorado State
���Y �P�'tmex►t.
Jim Rubin said they had agreed to the above additions.
Gerry White made a motfar to apprwe the Second Phase of a Develoq�ment Plan
�or F}nplayee Housing Located on Lots C1 throu� C5 of Tlionsxidge,`Filing No. 1,
• Located al.ong the North Frontage Roa.d sub�ect to the caridit3ans set forth
in the Departuent of Camunity Development mam da.ted-�1�79. Roger Tilk�eeier
secoaided the moti�. (Zhis excludes and changes numbers 5 and 6 as mentianed
above.) Zhe vote was unanimrnzs.
4.) Rezona.ng of the Val d'Gore Property
Iatzy Rider e,xpla.ined the reaoning and the reasons for it as also discussed
in the department rr�norand�. 11iere was a discussion.
Roger Tilkecieier made a motion to apgrove the rezoning fro�a.Residential
Cluster (RC) to Medium Den.sity Multi Family (�) with the stipulatiar
that once the mortgage is paid fo�r, the Daning be changed to PUD.
Jim Morgan seconded the motian. The vote was five far� the appmv�al
and o�►e against. R,rni Todd voted aga.inst the re�oning.
Amen�nsnt to Zoning Ordinance concertiing a'minim�m lot size far duplexes
' in �rn FamilY�Residential and � Family Prima.ry/Secbiidaiy Resi.cl�itial
Zbne Districts.
J9m Rubin explained that they wazld like to change th3s zariing so tha.t
it i.s more 9.n conforniance with the County's and with the new duplex
lots created in the Town of Vail. He further expla.ined that it had
been initia,ted in di.scussing potential zoning for the 1�4atterhozn Area.
Roger Tilkemeier marle a motion to amend the Zoni.ng O.rdinance as recanr�ended
• in tt� Department o� Camx.mity Develogne�rt Q�emo dated May 17, 1979.
I
�
PF]C Meeting Minutes-5-22-79
Page Six
• Gerry White sec�ded the uation. The vote was 2our in iavor of the motion
and two oppased. Roa� Zbdd and Jim Morga.n voted against the motion, stating
their opinions that thi.s was another dvwn zaning and was tmfair to thoee
peo�le who ha.ve undevelaped lots of less tban 15,000 square feet in either
of the two dupleac 9ones.
Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to acljaurn the meeting. J�m btorgan secondod.
Zhe vote wa.s unanirrrn�s. The meeting was ad�vurned at 6:10 P.M.
•
•
,
MEMORANDUM
• T0: Planning and Environmental Corrmission
FROM: Dept. of Community Development/Jim Rubin
DATE: May 17, 1979
SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance concerning a minimum Iot size
for duplexes in Two Family Residential and Two Family Primary/
Secondary Residential Zone Districts.
At the present time, any lot in a Two Family Residential or 7wo Family
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, regardless of its size is
permitted two dwelling units. This is contrary to zoning in Eag1e County,
where 5,000 square feet of site area is needed per unit and to any new
lots 9n the Town of Vail where 17,500 square feet is required in a Two
Family Res�dential zone district and 15,000 square feet. in a Two Family
Primary/Secondary Zone District.
The objective of this Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to allow
onTy one sing1e family residential unit on lots in either of the two
duplex zone districts on lots of less than 15,000 square feet. This
would prevent people from trying to squeeze two units on smal1er
lots which can and does happen at the present time.
� In the existing Town, there are approximate7y 110 lots that would be
impacted by this Amendment. About 50� of these lots are under 12,Od0
square feet with 57% of them currently developed. Of the ones that
are developed, 60� of them are single family units with the remaining
40� being dup7exes.
In the Matterhorn area that has petitioned for annexation, 14 of the
24 lots or 58% are under 15,000 square feet.
The pro�osed changes to the Zoning Ordinance are as follows:
Section 1: Section 18.12.090
Density Control is repealed and reenacted to read as fol7ows:
18.32.090 DENSITY CONTR4L (Two Family Residential
District) Not more than a total of two
dweiling units in a single structure
shall be permitted on each site with
only one dwelling unit permitted on lots
of less than 15,000 square feet�and not
more than 25 square feet of groSs residen-
tial floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted
for each 100 square feet for the first
]5,000 square feet of site area, pTus not
more than 10 square feet of gross residen-
tial floor area shall be permitted for each
. 100 square feet of site area over 15,000
square feet not to exceed 30,000 square
feet of site area, plus not more than five
square feet of gross residential floor area
for each 100 square feet of site area in
; �
Memo to PEC
5-17-79
Page Two -Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
•
excess of 30,000 square feet. No two
family residential lot except those
totally in the red hazard avalance zone,
or the flood plain, or those of less than
15,000 square feet shall be so restricted
that it cannot be occupied by a two-family
dwelling.
Section 2: Section 18.13,080
Density Control (Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential District)
18.13.080 DENSITY CONTROL(Two Family Primary/Secondary
Residential District) -Not more than a total
of two dwetling units in a single structure
shall be permitted on each site, with only
one dwelling unit permitted on lots of 'less
than 15,000 square feet�and not more than
25 square feet of gross residential floor
area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each
T00 square feet for the first 15,000 square
feet of site area, plus not more than 10
square feet of gross residential floor area
• shall be permitted for each 100 square feet
of site area over 15,000 square feet not to
exceed 30,Q00 square feet of site area, plus
not more than five square feet of gross res-
idential floor area for each lOQ square feet
of site area in excess of 30,000 square feet. ,
No two family residential lot except those
totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or
the flood plain, or those of less than 15,000
square feet shall be sa restricted that it
cannot be occupied by a two-family Primar.y/ .
Secondary Residentia7 Dwelling. '
I
•
� '
� �MORANDUM
� _
; T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
RROM: Department o£ Community Development/Peter Jamar
DATE: May 21, 1981
RE: 1} Amendments to Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and 18.69.050 of the
Zoning Gode that the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of the
total Gross Residential Floor. area allowed, and
2) ].8,12.050 to reduco the mimi.mum lot size in the (R) Residential
: district to I5,000 square feet of buildable site area. '
I
�
i Currently, the £loor area distribufiion for Primary Secondary dwell.ing units
� is that the secondary unit sha11 not exceed I/3 of the Gross 12esidential Floox
� Area a13.owed. This 1/3 allocation of floor area is required £or dwellings in
� 'the Prima.ry/Secondary Residenti.al Zone District, for lots of less than 15,000
' square feet in the Residential Zone District and Residential Primary/Secondary
i Zone District that wish to have an employee rental unit, anc! in the Residential
! Zone District on lots where the average slope.beneath the structure and parka,ng
' area is in excess of 300. In aXI of these znstances, the secondary unit canno't
� � exceed 330 0� the allowable GRFA.
i
The Proposed amendments .would change the floor area allocata.on in these three
; sections flf the Zoning Code to read that "the second unit shaZl not exceed 40%
` of the total Gxoss Residential Floor Area." Thus, the amendments would change
� the ailocation £rom the allowed maximum of 330 £or the secondary unit to a maximt�m
� of 40%.
Qn April 6, the Community I?evelopment Department sent out a letter to architects,
builders, and other concerned citizens requesting input on the change in floor
area allocation. The response to this letter and the question of the change
zn floox area allacation vras largely in favar of going to a 60/40 split. The
general feeling is that 60/40 will do as much to prevent "mirror-ima.ge10 duplexes
as 66/33 has, it will a1Tow for more architectural flexibility in the secon-
dary units, and will result in more space allocated to the secondary unit. For
example, on a 15,000 sq ft lot, the secondary unit would be allawed 1250 square
feet under a 66/33 breakdown, and 1500 squaxe feet under the proposed 60/��.
The staff feels that these would be positivc changes and would sti.11 ma.zntain
the intent of the Primary/Secondary floor area allocation.
(---------------- ------
The second amendment would change SecCion 18.12.050 of the zoning code
to reduce the minimiun lot size in the Residential (12) Zone District from ;
17,50C square feet to 15,000 square feet. 'I'he basic reason for this change 'i
. is to create uniformity in the lot size for the R and R P/S Zone Districts
and to make the minimum Iot area criteria in the R Zone DistrzCt consi.stent
with the density contxol section of that District.
�
" 6/40 - 2 - May 21, 1981
� r
� RECOMMENDATION
1. The Staff recornmends amending Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and
iS.b9.050 of the Zoning Code that the secondary uni,t shall not
exceed 40% of the total Gross Residential Area. ln addition, the
Staff recommends that in the Primary/Secondary zone district, for _
Aots less than 15,Q00 square feet in the Residential Zone Distra.ct,
and £or lots of over 30% slope in the Residential and Residenti,al
Primary/Secondary Zone District, no mirror image duplex be permitted.
Also, for all lots af 15,000 square feet or gxeatex in the Pximary
Secondary Zone District, rib mirror image dup�ex units are permi�rted
2. The staff also recommends amending Section 18.12.OS0 of the Zoning
Code to read that the minimum 1ot or site area shaiJ, be 15,000
square feet of buildable site area instead of the current 17,500
squa.re feet.
•
�
�
I
I
�
�
� e
, - P�EC -4- May 2G, 1981
. �
� Gaynor moved that the applzcataoit be approved with the recommendation made
part o� the approval. He fe1�C that the building was important zo the area,
that they would still have a walkway from Bridge Street to WaII Street.
Scotfi felt they shou],d add that the clear title must be .shown as a 4th
' condition.
Dick Ryan stated that in talking to the Town Council, he was instructed not
to issue a building permit until a cieax title was shown.
Gaynor wanted to add another condition to his motion, that of requiring a
bond to protect the Town.
Duane pipex seconded the motion, and the vo�e a.n favor af granting the
permission for the alteration was 5-0, with 12oger and Dan abstaining.
The motion passed.
7. Request £or amendments to the density control sectian of the zoning code
that the second unit shall not exceed 40$ of the total Gross Residential
F1oor Axea (currently this figure is 33 1/3$) allowed on the lot in the
�f1��f� P/S Residential Districfi. Aiso, lots in the Residential District containing
less than 15,000 square feet of site area shall not have a second unit exceed
��� 40% of the to�al GRFA allowed on the lot. In addition, lots xn the residential
�f� dzstrict with development proposals.whereby the average slope beneath the
structure and parking area is in excess of 30% shall not have a secondary
unit exceed 4Q% af the total G�tFA allowed on the lot. These changes would
result in a new 60/40 allocation of GRFA whexever the 66/33 allocati,on
� presently is in effect.
Peter Jamar explained the tnemo, and discussion of the various aspects followed.
Scott moved that they follow the sta££ recammendation to recommend amendments
to Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 and I$.69.050 of t}E zoning code tha.t the seconda.ry
unit shall not exceed 40� of the total GRFA allowed, and, 2) ainendment to section
18.I2.050 to reduce the minimum lot size in the (R) Rsidenta.al District to
15,000 square feet af buildable site area from 17,500 square feet. Dan Coxcoran
seconded the motion., and the vote was 7-0 in favor.
8. Request for amendments to Sections 18.12.090 and I8.13.080 of the zoning
code concerning the pxocess and criteria for granti.ng exceptions to the density
control regulati�ns in the Residential (R) and Prima.ry/Secondary Residential
(P/S) Zone Districts for Iots of less than 15,000 squa.re feet so that a secondary
unit may be constructed on these lots for the purpose of employee housing.
Peter Jamar explained why the staff felt these changes were important. Dick
reviewed the process of the .application:
1. Apply to DRB '
2. After the deciszon, the Staff will make certain the uni.t will be employee �
housing. '�
3. A written notice wi11 be sent to the PEC, so the PEC can review and if they I
don't agree, the PEC can appea2 the decision of either fihe sta£f or DRB.
� 4. Appiicant or adjacent property awner can appeal to FEC,
�
TOWN OF VAIL
SEC'fION 1857.020(A)
UNTTS(EHU)GENERALLY
Mu.No. Mu.No.
ZodoL Lol Sise Denslty ot Bcd- af Reai-
Codc EHU Dis4icte Whi�L Reqalrc- C�Icola- GRFA Ownership Approving rooms dcute Kitchm Piricine
Sectioa 7rpe AOow EdU's mcnla tlom Rntrietiooe L50 PoleatW Aothoriry Albwed Allowcd F�d4tSu Requlrcmenta Credila
18.57.040 Type 1 P/S Tvo Funily Less Ihav 1.0 40%o( Ye� Yes,both DRB N/A N/A Full 50% 425 sq.ft.
I5,000 allowable uuin get endoaed";
GRFA reatricted 1-2 spaces
� 18.57.050 Type R Agicultural/Open Mioimum 0.0 300-900 sq.R Yn No PEC 2 2 WuLLs Full 1 spacd Onc guage
Spxe Singk of I5,000 2 dWdlea Dedroom• cp.of 300
Family P/5 Two sq.ft
Faroily
1857.060 Type III RCJLDMP/MDMF! N/A OS 450-900 sq.iL No Yec PEC 2 4 Full 1 spa<rJ Mdu-
F[DMF/PA/CCU hed�oom• family
CCII/CCIILCSC/ cRdib
ABD/P/PI7/SBR
18.57.070 Type IV RC/LDMP/MDMF/ N/A 03J3 20D-300 sq,ft_ No No PEC N/A I KiicAeaene 1 spazz Multl-
HDMF/PA/CC7/ family
Ca]/CCIII/CSCJ CYediu
ABD/P/PU/SBR
19.57.080 Type V Hitlside Residentid 21J60 I.0 0.1,200 sq.fL Yes No DRB N/A N/A Full 1-2 spwes• 425 p.R
50%eocloxd
�-FIu9e feC 4xt for fpCCiflC ICquuCmrnb.
+ 462m/452u (Vaii 1-9�
l
, . ', . ,
,. I; � ' . ��� � +
.. ' �Us� r � �a v�e._. 'r_�.v�,.e..,.
�
ORDINANCE NO.�3 : ���,, .-�.� � ---
serfas of 1990 ,
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE N0. 2 3,y���a����� �M��
SERIES OF 1988, TO FROVIDE CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRTCT NO. 22 THAT CONCERN LOT STZE AND CORRESPONDING GRFA;
AND CURB CUTS; AND EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNITS; AND ARCHITECTURAL
GUIDELINES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO
WIiEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, The Town Counpil approved �rdinance No. 23, Series
of 1988 Special Development District No. 22; and .
WHEREAS, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction has requested to
amend the existing Special Development D�.strict No. 22; and
WHET{EAS, there is aa identified need for affordable housirig
in the community; anc�
WHEREAS, the Town ot Va31 has not adopted formal policies to
encourage the development of affordable hou�inq units;` and'
WHEREAS, the Special Development District provides for
creativity and flexibility to allow far the development af
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission has
recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development
District No. 22; and
WHEREAS, The Town Council considers that it is reasonable,
appropri.ate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens,
inhabitants, and visitors �o repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1988 to provide for such changss in Special Deve].opment
Distri.ct No. 22, Davphinais Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN C4UNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COIARADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988 is
heXeby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
Seotion 1. Amer��l�ent Procedures Fulfilled Planning Commission
e ort
The approval procedure prescribed in Chapter ].8.40 of the Vail
Municipal Cade have been fulfilled, and the Town Counci]. has
received the report of the P].anning and Environmental Commission �
recommending approval, of tha proposed development plan for
Special Development District No. 22.
Sectian 2. SAecial Develoument Dfstrict No.
Special Development District No. 22 (SDD22) and the development
p�an therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lots 1
thxqugh 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3 within the
Town of VaiZ consisting af 10.69 acres.
1 '
;°< �
,� ,.
� � ��
ORDINANCE N0. 19
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE REPEAI,ING AND REENACTING SECTION 18,13.080 A. ,
D�NSITY CONTRQL OF THE MUNICIPAL COQE OF THE TQWN OF VAIL AND
PROVIDING THAT THE GROSS RESID�Ni'IAL FLOOR AREA DISTRIBUTION RATIO
FQR PRIMARY/SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS BE AMEND�D TO PROVIpE THAT
THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE Na GREATER THAtJ FORTY PERCENT
OF THE 70TAL ALLOWAB�.E 6ROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR RREA; AND PROVIDING
DE7ATL5 IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Ordinance Na. 12, Series of 1988, inadvertently eliminated the
requirement that the gross residential floor area distributian ratio for primary/
secondary dwelling units be no greater �han forty percent (40%) of the tatal
allowable gross residential floor arsa; and
WHEREAS, this was a typographical error which the Town Council now wishes to
correct.
NOW, T�iEREFORf, BE IT ORDAINEO BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TNE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
1. Section 18.13.080A of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows;
18.13.080 A. DENSITY CONTRaL
A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units sha11 be permit�ed on each
site, with only one dwelling uni� permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand
square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residentia1 floar
area {CRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area for the
first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area, plus not more than �en
square fee� of gross residential floar area shall be permitted for each one hundred
square feet of site area over fiftesn thousand square fee� not �o exceed thirty
thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross
residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of
thirty thousand square feet. On any site con�aining two dwelling units, one of the
units shall not exceed forty percen� (40�) of the total allowable gross residential
floor area (GRFA}, No two-family residential 7ot except those total]y in the red
hazard avalanche zone, or the fiaod plain, or those of less than fifteen thousand
square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family
primary/secondary residential dwelling.
2. If any part, section, subsection, sen�ence, c1ause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall nat affect the
validity of the rer�aining por�ions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby
�
i7 ' �
� 4 � � � �
�
�
,
declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, �
�
�
sen�ence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, ciauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3. fihe Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance
is necessary and proper for the health, safety and we1fare of the Town of Vail ;and �
the inhabitants thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal
�
Code of the Town of Vaii as provided jn this Ordinance shall nnt affect any right
which has accrued, any duty imposed, arty violatian that occurred pr9or to the
effective da�e hereof an rosecution commenced nor an other action or �
� Y p � y
' proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
�
� and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby s�tall nat revive any provision or
�
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
' S. Al1 bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof,
�
; incansistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This
�
3 repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, nr
; �
E
: ordinance, or part �hereof, heretofore repealed.
�;
; I�dTRODUCED, R�AD ANO APPROVED ON �IRST R�ApING this 17th day of .�uly ,
� 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 17th day of ��
.�uly , 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of �he Vai1
Municipal Building, Vail , Colorado.
Ordered published in full this i7th day of ,Tulv _ , 1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayo
`;
ATTEST:
�
� � .���
�
Pame1a A. 8randmeyer, wn Clerk
INTRQDEICED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
by c�t1c on1.y this 7i� day of August , �,ggQ,
. �-,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
{ ��
Pameia A. Brandmeyer, To n Clerk
-2-
�� � - ... . ..>.vM+�.., . ;�.:.-.v.
�
- J � • s
, �
M �
` ,
ORDINANCE NO. 21
Series of 199i
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING
CNAPTER 8.28 OF i'HE MUNICIPAL COD�
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; SETTING FORTN CERTAIN
PROVISIONS TO CONTRO� A1R POLLUTION WITHIN THE TOWN;
AND pFtOVIDiNG ��TAll.S WITIi REGARO THERET4
WHEREAS, 1he setting of tho Town of Vail in a valley between two mounfafns restricts
air movement through iFie valley;
WHEREAS, the movement of air through the Gore Valley is furthor restricted fn oold
times of the year tP�ereby causing the increased bulldup of pollutants in the air ca�sed by salid
fuei burning devices;
WHEf�EAS, thQ Town Council finds that the pollution caused by solid fuel burning
devlces !s exacerbated by tl�e altitude, topography. climate and meteorology of tfie 7own of
Vall;
WI-IEf�EAS, the Town Council finds #hat these sources of air pailution may be
minimized by exlsting, practicai and economlcal technologies;
WHEREAS, the Town Council has deEermined that it is necessary to encourage
envlronmentally beneficiaf technologles to prevent further degradation of the air quality of the
Vail Valley;
WI�iEREAS, the Town Councll considers �isually clean air to be an irreplaceable asset
enjoyed by guests and residents of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 8Y THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE T�WN
OF VAIL, COLOI�ADO, THAT;
Section 1 The Vaif Municipal Code Chapter a.28 ,"Alr Pollution Contro!" be repealed
and reenacted to road as foilows: �
8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability
These regulations are enacted for tl�e purpose of promoting the healih, safety and general
welfare of the residents and visitors in the Town of Vall. These regulat�ons are intended to
achfeve the following rr�ore spocifEc purposes:
1) To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail;
2) To reverse the continuing trQnd toward increaseci air degradation in
I
the Town of VaEI; '
�
i
�
1
I
� � � ` -
* . �
� ,
� 3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and have a rec�uced
po+luting effect;
4} And to generally protect the air for the purpose nf the pubilc's averaif
health, safety and w�;�'�re.
The provisfons of this Chapter shall apply to al! areas ot the Town flf
Vall.
i
8.28.a2a Definitions I
1) Solid Fuol Burninct Device: shall mean any fireplace, stove,
firebox or devlce intended and/or used for the purpose of burning wood, pulp, paper or other
non-liquid ar r�on-gaseous fuel. '
2} Certifled Solid Fuel Burninq Device: shafl mean a solid fuel
burning devico which is certified by the Environmental I�rotectlon Ac�ency and by the Air
Pollution Controi DlvEsion of the Colorado Department of Mealih to produce 7.5 grams of
particulatos per t�our or less, Tt�is stiall include both catalytic and non-cakalytic Phasa 1{
stoves as well as pellet burners and any other technology whlch can be shown to meet these
emission criter{a.
3) Wood Burninc� Fireplace: shall mean an open hearth ar firo
cnaniber or slmilar prepared place in which a flre may be made and which is bu€it in
conjunctfon with a chlmney. ,
4} Gas Appliance: shall mean a fully self-confained, Underwriter's
Laboratori4s (U.L.) Ilsted and American Gas Associatlon {A.G.A.) "firepface" unit which does
not requiro venting through a chimney and wh[ch does not permit the use ot solid tuel.
5) Gas Loq Fireplace: shall mean a fireplace as previously definod
oquippod wlth an A.G.A. and U.L. lisfed artificial log unEt which Is approved for the burning of
natural gas.
6) Dwellincl unit: means any room or group of rnoms in a single
family, two-famlly or multiple-famliy dwelling with kltchen facilities deslgned for or used by one
tamily as an independ�nt housekaeping unit. '
�
�
i
� � f
I
2 �
� � i
� ��a . .
,
,
7) Accommodatlon unit: means any room or group of rooms without
kitchft+� faclllties desighed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessibie from
common corri�lors, walks, or balconles without passing through another accommodation unit
or dwelE3ng unit.
8) Refuse: rneans all solid wastes, garbage ahd rubbish, whether
combustible or noncombuslible, including rubbls.
9) Restrlcied DwellinQ Unit: means:
a. Any dwelling unit which is restrfated by the Zoning Code II
to be leased or rontod for a period of not fess than thirty (30) consecutiva days and which is
requlred to be leasod or rented to ienants who are full kime employees of the Gore Va11ey,
Mlnturn, Red Clkff, Eagle-Vail, Avon, or the surrounding areas. For the purpases of this
Section, a full-time omployes shaD be deemed to be one who works an average of not less
than thlrty (30) hours por week.
b. Any dwelling unft which the Zoning Code prohibits from
being subdEvldad or soid separately from another dwelling unik.
10) Common Area: means the lobby o# any lodge {as that term is
deflned In 5ection 18.04 of ihe Zoning Code), the area of any condominlum project availabie
for the common use of a!I the unit owners and rQStaurants and bars.
a.28.030 Wood}aurni�Firepfaces/So1id Fuel Burninp Devices Prohibfted
l�r�ore shall be no woodburning flreplace and no salid fuel burning device, oiher than a
certifled salld fuel burning device, constructed or installed wlthfn any dwelling unit,
accommodation unit, restricted dwelfing unit or common area wftfiln the Town.
8.28.044 Permitted Devices
Certiffed solicl fuel burning devlces, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces shall be
perm(tted to be installed or constructed in dwelling units, accommodation units, resfricted
dwelEing units or comrrion areas subJect to iF�e fol(owing provisions:
A. D_weilinq Units - Dweliing units shall contain not more than ane certifiod
solid fuel burning device and, in addition, not more than iwo gas appllances; or in the
aftemative, not more than iwo gas iog fireplaces and, in addition, not more than two gas
appliances. �
8. Restricted Dwellina Units - Restricted dweNfng units shall contain not
more than one gas log flreplace and, in addition, not more than one gas appliance.
3
�
;
r •
� � , • ' .. `
;' �
C. Accommodatlon Units - Accommod�tfan units shall contaln one gas
fir��pi;..ar,e or, in the alternative, one gas appliance. All gas fireplaces located in
accommodation units shafl be constructed in such a manner that access to the firebox is
prohibited except for the �;u!�oses of repair and maintenance. A sign shall be placed on each
fireplace unit reading: "Caution - Gas Firpplace OnEy." All gas 1og fireplaces and gas
appllances in accommodation units shall be equlpped wi#h a timing device or a tt�ermostat
whlch shall cause an automatfc shutoif of ihe fire for safety and cohservatfon purposes.
, D. Common Area - Any common area sha�f contain not more than one
certlfied soild fuel buming device, or ln the alternative one gas log fireplace, or in the
aiternative one g�s appllance.
8.28.050 Non-Conforminq Devices, Fireplaces and Appliances
A. 1) Non-con#armfng sol(d fuel burnlnc� devices, certitied solid fuel
burning devices, woodburning flreplaces, gas appliancc�s and gas loc� (ireplaces, lawfutly
constructed or installed p�ior to tho otfoctive date of this ordinance, may continue, subject to
any Iimitatians or restrictions c�ntained in this Section 8.28.050.
2) Any certitied solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances and c�as
Iog firepiaces Iawiully designed and for which a completed besign Review �aard apppcation
was receivod by the Commui7ity Development Department prior to August 15, 1991 may be
installed ar constructed subject to any limltatlons or restrlcilons conta�ned fn thls Seciion
8.28.05Q.
B, if one or more saparate conformEng or non-conforming dwelling units,
restricted dwolling units or accommodation units are combined to form one farger dwelfing,
resiricted dwelling or accommodatlon unit, the newly formed unit shall comply in a!I respects
wltfi the provlslons ot thls Chapter 8.28.
C. No existing woodburnfng flreplace shall be moved or structurally altered,
unless It Is modified ln such a manner that It compl{es with all the provisions of this ordinance.
D. Whenever any dweiling unit, accommodatlon unit, restrlcted dwellfng unit
or cammon area Is substantlally demolishod or destroyed, whether by the intent o# Its owner
or lessee, or by natural disastor, if such dwelling unEt, accommodation unit, restricted dwelling
unit or common area Is restored or reconstructed, it shail meet all the provislons af this
.
Chapter 8.28 '
,
�
�
i
� I
4
i
.
� � _ �
1 � �
`
8.28.060 CoaE Usaqe Prohibited
7he burning of coal within the Town of Vai{ is prohibited.
8.28.0�� Refuso Burninq Prohibited
7he burning of refc:ae in any solid fuel burning device is prohibited withln the Town of
I
VaiL
8.28.080 Building Perm(ts �,
A bufldfng permit st�all be regufred for the Instaflation of any certiffed solld fuel burning
dovice, gas appliance or gas log fireplace. However, to encourage the canversion of waod
burning flreplaces and non-certified soEid fuel burning devlces to certiffed salid iuel burning
cJevices, gas {og fireplaces and gas appliances, all appllcable bu(Iding permit fees for such
conversion shal! be waived by the Town of Vail.
8.28.090 F�enaliies
It is unlawfu! for any person to vlofate any provision of thls Chapter or to
fail to comply wiih any of the requirements of this Chapte�. Any person performing any act
prohlbited or declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing ta perform an act requlred by or
othorwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not mare than four
hundred n�noty-nine dollars ($499). Any such person shall be guilty of a separate offensa f�r
eac}� �nd every day during any portion of which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is
corrimitted, continued, or pormiited by such �erson and shall be punished accordingly. In
addition to penalties provided in this Section, any candition caused or permltted to exlst in
violation of any provision of this Chapter shal! be deemed a public nuisance, and may be by
this Town simila�ly abated as such, and each day thak such condition continues shall be
regarded as a new and separate offense.
Secifon 2
If any part, secfion, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase af this ordinance is for any
reason t�e1d to be invalid, such decision shail not effoct the validity of the remalning portions of
ihis ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed thls ordinancfl,
and each part, saction, subsoctlon, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact
that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
i
i
5
I
;;
-�
.
� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 26, 1992
Present Staff Present
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams Andy Knudtsen
Greg Amsden Shelly Mello
Chuck Crist Jim Curnutte
Gena Whitten
1. Starting at approximately 2:30 P.M., a review of a staff approval for two minor
amendments to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, The Westin, 1300 Westhaven Drive
and the Cascade Club, 1294 Westhaven Drive was discussed prior to the originally
scheduled item No. 1 to accommodate those members of the public present for this
item.
Applicant: The Westin Resort/Cascade Club Ltd.
Planner: Shelly Mello
She��y Me�lo �evie�red briefly th� two requests. The generaf consensus of the Board _
was that they understood the requests per the staff memo and were ready to vote.
Dalton Williams motioned to approve the requssts per the staff inemo, Jeff Bowen
. seconded. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously 6-0 to
approve the two requests with the conditions per the staff's memo. Diana Donovan
commented that she would not be in favor of the conversion of more retail or
restaurant areas to office space in the future.
2 A work session was held to discuss a request for the establishment of a Special
Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change and
an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson ranch
Road/Lots A and B, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates,
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Members from the public introduced themselves; Michael Staughton, Ron Riley,
_ Connie Knight, Craig Snowdon, Jim Johnson, Jim Lamont, and Jack Curtin.
Mike Mollica explained that this was an update work session only and that a regular
work session was scheduled for November 23, 1992.
Craig Snowdon, the architect for the applicants, reviewed the proposed plans with the
Planning and Environmental Commission explaining that the application was for an
� exterior alteration and an SDD as sought in May 1991, and again in November 1991.
He further explained that the request includes a rezoning and an encroachment into a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . , � . • , -..f �,.
• view corridor. Craig also expiained that Cyrano's is not a part of the current proposal'
and that now that the view corridor ordinance is in place, a view corridor encroachment
will be requested and additionally, that a land purchase is in process with Vail
Associates.
General discussion was held with concern of who was the owner of the northern-most
easement along Hanson Ranch Road. Mike Mollica stated that he would work with
Larry Eskwith to resolve this issue. Craig Snowdon pointed out that there are 6
concerns which are being addressed in the final proposaL•
1. building height
2. density
3. site coverage _ _ _
4. landscaping
5. parking
6. permitted use
Craig Snowdon also explained that the proposed plans modified the west boundary of
the building (cutting back the buifding to alleviate the impact of the view corridor) and
that it should be noted that Los Amigos deck may be expanded into Tract E, however,
the current application does not include this.
Jack Curtain suggested that the grade changes be addressed, especially concerning
the access to the mountain, because he was aware of drainage problems in the area.
� Craig Snowdon assured Jack and the Board that this would be addressed.
Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned with the height of the building (into the view
corridor) and that the proposed building has too much mass and bulk.
Chuck Crist was concerned with the bulk and mass as perceived from the street and
stated that he did not feel it would affect the view corridor. He would like the proposed
building footprint to be staked for the next site visit for the next scheduled review on
November 23, 1992.
Dalton Williams agreed with Chuck Crist's comments inasmuch that the building
footprint needs to be staked especially conceming the balconies. He also stated that
he is very concerned with the building height and that Section F of the CCI (Design
Guidelines) should be considered in the design of the proposed structure.
Gena Whitten was concerned with the height and suggested that it was necessary to ,
see the flat elevations of the different areas to better determine the mass of the !,
building. I
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992
_ 2
� :
. Jeff Bowen pointed out that the Master Plan shouid be reviewed and used as the basis
for this review.
Greg Amsden stated that he would also like the building "lined out" for a period of
approximately two weeks and to let the public visualize it as well. He also stated that
he would like to see the flat elevations of the building.
Diana Donovan was concerned with the re-zoning of Tract E. She also had concerns
with the mass of the building as proposed.
The general consensus by the Board was that there was concern with the height, mass
and bulk of the building and that the accurate staking of the building, for the site visit
November 23, will be necessary.
3. A request for setback and density variances to allow for an addition at 2963
BellfloweNLot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Hans and Mia Vlaar
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Cumutte reviewed the applicants request per the plans submitted and stated that
the applicant has an amendment to the landscaping and driveway area which
enhances the application_
. Hans Vlaar presented his conceptual revision to the driveway area using more grass
and less paving or incorporating grass pavers (Grasscrete).
Dalton Williams suggested that the Grasscrete concept was acceptable to him and that
it was a good idea.
Chuck Crist agreed with the revised plan that the applicant presented.
Jeff Bowen agreed with the revised plan that the applicant presented.
Gena Whitten agreed with the revised plan that the applicant presented.
Dalton Williams agreed with the revised plan tf�at the applicant presented. :
� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992
3
; : - i
� Greg Amsden agreed with the revised pian that the applicant presented.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like the pavement reduced and that the applicant
should work with Public Works on the driveway entry. Diana also stated that she
would like to see a documented plan of whaYs on site. She also stated that the
planting inventory should include hearty shrubs in the planter and small spruce ,
elsewhere. I
Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request per the memo, per the applicant's
submittal, and the suggestions from the Board, with Chuck Crist seconding the motion.
The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-0 unanimously to approve the
request. The approved landscape plan consisted of a 2.5' x 12', L-shaped, raised
planting box at the northwest corner of the parking area. This area will receive a
minimum of four handy shrubs {dogwood, potentilla or mugho pine.) The area south of
the house will be completely reseeded with a native grass seed mix, except for the
grasscrete strips. Three hardy shrubs (5 gallon minimum) and one 6' spruce will be
planted between the house and the northern most grasscrete strip.
4. Review of Air Quality Brochure for lodges in Eagle County.
Staff Persons: Russ Forrest
Susan Scanlan
Susan Scanlan and Russ Forrest presented the proposed brochure to the Planning
• and Environmental Commission members. Susan explained the purpose of the
brochure and where and when it will be distributed.
General discussion regarding the material the brochure should be made of, the colors,
the footnotes, and the wording resulted in a few word changes suggested by the
Board.
Jeff Bowen stated that he was in favor of the brochure and to "go for it."
Dalton Williams stated that he felt that the first paragraph on the second page was too
technical and should not explain an inversion. Kristan Pritz stated that she did not feel
it was too technical and that the inversion explanation should remain. Russ Forrest
stated that he felt the public should understand why the inversion happens and what it
means. Dalton then agreed that perhaps it is not too technical. Greg Amsden added
that he liked the technical application of the brochure and that it is important that
people know why our climate is prone to inversion.
• : PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992 :
4
�.
• Diana Donovan stated that she felt that the pictures should coincide directly with the
verbiage relating to that picture. Diana also stated that she felt some of the wording
needed to be changed throughout. Staff noted the changes.
The general consensus of the Board was that the brochure is a good informational
item and that the Town should proceed with it
5. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing for the Town of Vail
Zoning Code.
Applicant: Town of Vai!
Planner. Andy Knudtsen
After a brief staff presentation, Dalton Williams had questions about the section of the
Code describing the Employee Housing units as permanent residences. He requested
that the staff and Council consider revising the paragraph so that it included the phrase
"to which one plans to return after a vacation." He also had a question about
converting garage space, that may have originally been considered a credit, into
GRFA. Staff explained that, in no case, shall any property exceed the allowable GRFA
per lot unless the owner received a density variance. Applicants would not be able to
convert garages unless additional GRFA were available on the lot.
Jeff Bowen made a suggestion that the word "interior" be added to the phrase "there
• shall be no access from any EHU to any dwelling unit that may me attached to." He
also had questions about the age limitations for Type II units for children. Lastly, he
suggested that the term "perspective" be changed to "prospective" for Type I and Type
III EHU's.
The rest of the PEC discussed the age limitation for children for Type II units.
Consensus was reached and the PEC recommended that the age be dropped from 16
years to approximately 5 years, ie. school age children.
Diana Donovan commented that the ordinance had changed a great deal since the
task force had last seen it and that it was frustrating to work so hard on task forces for
the Town and then see so many changes in the work.
Jeff Bowen suggested that the Town provide a brochure to employees in an effort to
help them find housing.
� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992
5
:. .` �. .�. . -� �. .: : . .. . �. '. �� . . : . . .� �. . : �-.' - _ . : .. . . . . _ .. . .. . . A
� Greg Amsden commented about the requirement for prospective buyers to submit an
application to Community Development document+ng that they meet the employee
housing criteria.
Lastly, Dalton suggested that the Town provide a flyer and distribute it to the public
explaining the details of this ordinance.
With the conclusion of the discussion, Jeff Bowen moved to recommend approval of
Ordinance #27 Series 1992 to Town Council and Dalton Williams provided the second.
The Commission voted 5-1 recommending approval to Town Council. Diana Donovan
was opposed to the Ordinance in that she believed that it would allow too many units
to be sold.
6. Items 3, 6, and 7 were requested to be tabled with Dalton Williams motioning to :
approve the tabling and Jeff Bowen seconding the request. A unanimous vote of 6-0 ',
approved these items to be tabled to a later date.
I
7. The minutes to the October 12, 1992 meeting were discussed and with the changes to I
be made, were approved with Jeff Bowen making the motion and Chuck Crist �
seconding the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 to approve the minutes with the
corrections. I
The Planning and Environmental Meeting adjoumed at 5:50 P.M.
•
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 1992
6
�
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Communiry Development Department
DATE: October 26, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing for the Town
of Vail Zoning Code.
Applicant: Town af Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
L Descrlptlon of the Request
On September 1, 1992, Town Council passed an Employee Housing Ordinance on second
reading. At that hearing, Council members and citizens made suggestions which were then
incorporated into the ordinance. Since that hearing, staff has reviewed the wording that was
adopted and believes that three adjustments to the wording should be made. The proposed
ordinance has three components.
The first makes the text more detailed and specific for each type of housing unit regarding
ownership potential. The former ordinance had one sentence describing the ownership
potential for Type I and Type III EHU's. The proposed ordinance deletes that sentence and
replaces it with five separate paragraphs. The concepts do not change, as the previous
ordinance allowed ownership in the case of Type I and Type III EHU's. The proposed
ordinance maintains this standard and specifically states that individual ownership is not
allowed for Types II, IV, and V. These changes are identified in the attached Ordinance as
Section 18.57.020-Paragraph C, sub-paragraphs A through E.
The second change states that all employee housing units, which are connected and part of
another dwelling unit or structure, may not have interior access between the units. The
proposed language is identified in the attached ordinance as Section 18.57.020-Paragraph K.
The proposed language includes a separate sentence clarifying the standard, but does not
change the intent.
�
,
The third change relates to Type I units and Type III units. it allows EHU's which have been
created in garages to be sold. Staff found that two statements in the ordinance are no longer
needed. Specifically the sentence in 18.57.020-Paragraph D which stated that:
"If an EHU is permitted to be located in a garage it shall not be sold separately from
the dwelling unit or units located on the site or lot"
is proposed to be deleted, as shown in the attached ordinance. A similar sentence in Section
18.57.040 (B) 5 is proposed to be deleted. Please not that there are other standards in the
ordinance which will ensure that garages will not be converted to EHU's unless there is no
impact on the parking requirement/provision.
If. Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes as we believe they clarify the existing
wording of the ordinance.
pecUnemos�housing
i
i
.
; -•.
, 1
ti-) .. .;
! � �
+ . -.
ORDINANCE NO. 27
SERtES 7992
AN QRDINANCE AMENDING S�CTION 18.57.020 - EMPLOYEE HOUSINQ UN1TS
(EHUS) GENERALLY, O�THE MUNICIPAL COD� OF THE T4WN OF VAfL,
PARAGRAPH 18.57.02p (C) and (D) TO CLARIFY RESTRICTIONS
ON THE LEASING AND SA�E OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS, AND '�
PARAGRAPH 18.57.02Q (K), S�CTION 18.57.040 (B) 5, I
SEC'f�ON 18.57.040 B 9, SECTION 18.57.06p B 13, AND �
3ECTION 18,57.06Q B 6 TO CLARIFY THE M�ANING.
BE IT ORDAIN�p by the Town Counci� of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. $ectlon 18.57.020 - Paraqraph C Is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. All types ot EHUs may be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time
employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shail not be leased for a period iess than thirty
{30) cansecutive days. For the purpnses of this Sect(on, a fuli-time emplayee is one who works
an average of a mfnimum of thirty (30) hours each week.
{a) A 7ype I EHU may be sold, transferred, or canveysd separafely from any
Single-Family or Two-�amily dweliing it may be a part of so long as it meets the conditions set
farth in Sectfon 18.57.040(B)5 of this Chaptar.
(b) A Type !I EHU shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from
the S(ngle-Famlly or Two-Family dwefling it Is located wlthin or aEtached #a.
(c) A Type II I EHU may be sold,transferred, or conveyed separately from other
dwelling units or empfoyee housEng units fhat may be focated on the samo lot or within the same
buNding in wh(ch the Type �IE EHU is located so long as it meets ihe conditions set forth in
SectEon 18.57,060(B}11 of this Chapter.
(d) A Type IV EHU shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from
other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be Iocated on the same Iot or within the
same buflding fn which the 1'ype IV EHU is located.
(e� A Type V EHU shal! not be sold, transferred, or conveyed s�parately from
the Single-Famfly dwefling it may be located wfthin or attached to.
2. Sect(on 18.57.020 - Paraqraph D is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Reserved.
3. Section 18.57.020 - Para r h K is hereby amended to read as foliows:
,
_ . ... ,... �
' -
;,. .
• .
,
�
' K. Eech EHU shali have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access
from any EHU to any dwelling unit It may be attached,to.
4. Sectlon 16.57,Q�OB5 Is hereby amended to read as follaws:
(5) A Typ� I EHU may be rented in compllance with Section 18.57.020 or it
may be sold,transferred,or conveyed separately from �ny Singla-Famlly, or Two-Family dwelling
it may be a part af so long as it maets the following cnndltions:
(a) It must be used by the owner of the EHU as a perma�ent residence. Far the
purpase of this paragraph, a permanent residence shal! mean the hame or place in which one's
habitation is flxed and to which one, whenever he or ahe is absar�t, has a present 9ntentfon of
return{ng after a departure or absenae therefrom, regardless of the duration of absance, In
determining what ls a permanent resjdence,the Town staff shalf take the following clrcumstances
relaking to the owner of the residence Ento account: business pursuits, employment, (ncome
sourcea, resldence for income or othar tax purposes,.age, marital status, residence of parents,
spouse and children ff any, loc�tlon of personal and real property, and motor vehlcle registration,
(b) lf a Type I EHU is sold, transferred, or conveyed separatefy from the other unit In
a Two-Family dwelling it Es a part of, then both the Type I EHU and the unit to which It is attached
shall be subJect to all the provlsions set forth in Saction 18.57.020 F,G,H and K of this ordinance.
5. Section 18.57.�40 a 9 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(9) Thirty days prlor to the transfer of a deed for a Type I EHU, the
prospeotive purchaser shali submit an application to the Community Development Department
documenting thet the prospective purchaser meets the orlterla set forth in Sectivns 18.57.020 C
and 18.57,040 B 5 (a) and shall include an affldavlt afflrming that he or she meets these criterfa.
6. Section 16,57.060 B 13 is hereby amended to read as foElows:
(13) Thlrty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type I �MU, the
proapective purchaser shall submlt an applicatlon to the Community pevelopment Department
documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth fn Sections 18.57.�20 C
and 18.57.060 B 11 (a} and shall incfude an affidavlt affirming that he or she meets these crlterla.
7. Sectian 18.57.080 B 6 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(6) Ik sh�!! have no more than two (2) bedrooms.
8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, suoh decision shaN not aftect the validity of the remafnfng portions
of thls ordlnance;and the Town Council hereby declares It wauld have passed thls ordinance,and
2
♦
♦ t�
� r r�
, � , � • _!
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,
9. The Town Cauncil hereby ffnds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
nQCessary and proper for the health, safety, and weffare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
10. 'The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
ot the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shal! not affect any right which has accrued,any
duty imposed, any vialation that occurred pr(or to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceed+ngs as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repeafed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provislon hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance prevfously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
,
3 '
,�
i
. � ,
b •\,
� • •
1
• �i. All bylaws, orders, resolutians, an� ordinances, or parts thereof, Inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. Thls repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed,. .
INTRQDUC�D, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLIShIED ONCE IN �'ULL ON
FIRST READING this 3�d day of November, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the 1st day of December, 1992, at 7:30 p.m, ►n the Council Chambers of the Vail
Munfclpal Bulldfng, Vall, Colorado.
�-( .
� • Margaret A, Osterfoss, May
� _ .. .
ATTEST:
M�aGia: c�• �'a.eckw
Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND QRDERED PU�USHED
by �,tLc, en¢� th(s 1 at day of December, 1992,
� ----�
� ��������
Margsre A, Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
/l�t�nat;fn.�. t�. I�t.eclu.v
Martha S. Raecker, Town Cierk
C'10R082.27
�
� . ;
� i
� -� �. � � �
.. � � m � � � � �
� � � � � � a
� r � �� y y �
� ' � � � � � �
-o o p o Q . a
m m
�
� c�'o � � � � x� � _
� cp C � � m cp �p C
fJ � � � .�
r�-�
� �J I � V � �lI � \/ � � � � VJ O � �
noN
� �° �, � � oc� ccn � on u� a'-� � in y o
n n co m . o �
v ac�: � � n � r tn � n � r � �
� ro c� � DC) -n � ooDC) �n � � m c � � � �
�i �: �l (A C = � ,�l OC7 � _ � 0 71 U? .=r `�` ,.n..((�
-�i �- -pn � � pn � ^D � � w � T = N
ro � � � — � � -• m � w C �
.o � � '� `�n � � vi �
C .�� - A
<D. � �
� N Z Z � � -` r � �'1 f"
},� V D D � � �1D fD � 0
o cn 3 � �' � � V�
o �
n � g � � � �.
�
� o 0 0 � � m
p w 'vi o �
d � � ro �
w � � y 2
, � � �
�
b N Q � w a �0 � ,��i
0
� o 0 0 �7 0 � � � o
�'I o
4 O D �. � n D •Q.
O � � �O
Q � O '�'
� � � � � � �
� O �
�
� � � � N �
'�
r
� z z .� ..� �, o
� ° ° N c�n o m
m
0 o ro � c�u � � 'v p 2
o � cn p � C
N � �'' N � � cn
c�'umg
Q � � � � �
� C
Z
Q�J n n n � G�Q �'�i �
00 0 o m
� ` c
�
�
z z N N � n -� c� z
n � D o $ on � �
a
� y a ¢ rr-
�
D � � c� p� Z nro � �
�: Q- n o ,.�.,, �o ,�'!
a. � fD N H
� N 4 �� O
� .
c � � � 'Tl -f7 '�"p* � X
� � �- C � � (/l � �
(D � �'
� i (p
� �
� � � �.-G � �' �l �' �t .-J. (� � � � V
n W � � � N � � �
� � � N � Q� � N � o � fD �1
� �p n O W O �G7 -ON VdJ \ .��r C �
� N � � � � � n � N ~ �
" * (D � �
N ,..
ij � � n � � "p � � 'p n
C � , � N .t
(n � = Q. � � p fD � � a
� N � � � -.,c� cn
� � � CD � �
� - - a � .
.�� ,�' .
�
� r.
'„� t �,4.. �
� �
ORDINANCE NO. 31
SERIES OF 1993
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 18.57.060 B 13
OF THE MUNlCIpAL CODE OF THE TQWN OF VAIL.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, amended Sectfon 18.57.020 - Empinyee
Housing Units {EHUs} generally of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaii; and
WWEREAS, there was a typographical error contained in Section 6 thereof improperly
referrirtg to "Type I EHU".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAf L, COLORADO THAT:
Sectioh 1
5ection 18.57.0&0 B 13 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(13} Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type III EhiU, the prospective
purchaser shall submit an application to the Community Development Department documenting
that the prospective purchasar meets the criterfa set forth in Sections 18.57.020 C and 18.57.060
B 11 (a) and shali include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these crlterla.
Section 2
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinanee is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the valldity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance;and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance,and
eac:h part,section,subsection,sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the faot that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be deciared invalid.
Section 3
The Town Councfl hereby finds,determines,and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety, ancf welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitanis thereof.
Sectfon 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code •
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,any
duty lmposed, any vioiatian that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other ac#ion or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
pro�isEon repaalad or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provlslon hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or supersedecf un�ess expressly stated
herein.
1
Ordlnuw�No.31,Bsrlas o1 f9o1
I
�! � ,�,�• . • �
Section 5
All bylaws,orders, resolutions, and ordinances,or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the axtent oniy of such inconsistsncy. This repealer shaEl not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolutlon, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUC�D, READ, APPR�VE�, AND ORDERED PUBI.ISHED OIVCE IN FULL ON
�IF�S7 R�ADING this 2nd day of November, 1993, and a pubiic hearing shall be held on this
Ordinanca on the 16th day of November, i 993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Charnbers of the Vall
Municlpal guilding, Vail, Colorado.
1 ` `�'` �- _
Margaret . Osterfass, Mayor
ATTEST:
a . y���G�u�a�z�o�.
HoEly L.. McCutcheon, Tawn Clerk
R�AD AND APPROVED ON SECOND R�ADING AND ORDERED PUBLISMED
,�� � � �, a� this I�O��2day of N07ff'IaL�2Cl� 1993.
— ,
����' �"
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST':
D . `7 �' �C � � � ��
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
�..
r
C;�ORD93.3t
2
tlrdinanca No.39,8arfer ol 1993
� � � �
4RDINANCE N0. 14,
Series of 1994
AN ORDINANC� AMENDING CHAPTER 18.57, EMPLOYEE H�USING, AND SETTING
�ORTIi D�TAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, TH� TOWN OF VAfL'S ECONOMY !S �ARGELY TOURIST BASED AND
THE HEALTH OF THIS EC�N�MY IS BASED ON EXEMPLARY SERVICE FOR VAIL'S
GUESTS, AND;
WHEREAS, VAIL'S ABILIl'Y TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES DEPENDENT UPON A
STRONG, HIGH QUAL.ITY AND CONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE WORK FORCE, AND;
WHEREAS, THE AVAiLABILITY OF HOUSING PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN
CREAT{NG QUALITY LIVING AND WORKING CONDITlONS FQR THE COMMUNITY'S
WORK FORCE, AND;
WHEREAS, THE TOWN COUIVCIL. BEI.IEVES THAT THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS WELL MAKE 7H� �XISTING EMPLOYEE HOUSlNG ORDlNANCE MORE
EFFECTIVE, AND;
WHEREAS, IN ACCORDANCE WI7H SECTION 18.66.144, THE PLAEVNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ZONING
AMENDMENT AND HAS SUBMITTED ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE 70WN COUNCIL.
NOW, TH�REFORE, BE !T ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF 7HE TOWN
QF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Section 18.57.020 - Emplovee housinq units {EHU) aenerallv.
A. A chart(2) attached to this chapter and incorporated herein by reference
illustrates the requirements for each type of EHU.
B, No employee housing unit which is constructed in accordance with this chapter
shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or
fractional #ee.
C. All types of EHU's may sl��ll:be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time
employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shalf not be leased for a period less
than thirty consecutive days. For the purpos�s of this section, a ful!-time employee is
one who works an average of a minimum of thirty hours each week.
1
I
,, � � �
1. A Type I EHU may be sold, transferred, or conveyed separaiely from
any single-#amily or two-family dwellir�g it may be a part of so long as it meets
the conditions set forth in Section 18.57.040 8, 5 of this chapter.
2. A Type II EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately
from the single-family or two-family dwe[ling is located within or attached tn.
3. A Type III EHU may be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from ,
other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located on the
same lot or within the same buliding in whlch the Type 111 EHU is located so
long as it meets the condition set forth in Section 18.57.060 B, 11 of this
chapter.
4. A Type IV EHU shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately
from other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located ori the
same iot or within the same building in which the Type IV EHU is located.
5. A Type V EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately
from the single-family dwelling it may be located within or attached to.
D. Reserved.
E. No la#er than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing
unit within the town which is const�ucted follawing the effective date of this chapter
shail submit two copiss of a report on a form to be obtained from ths Community
Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of
Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence
establishing that the`employee housing �nit';has been rented throughaut the year,the
rental r�te,;t�e em�loye�, �nd that each tenant who resides within their th� employee�
housing unit is a fuli-time employee e#�in Eagle County,
F. No property coniaining an EMU shaU exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in
Title 18 except as provided in Sectians 18.57.040 B4, i8,57.050 B5 or �8.57.08p B3 0#
this chapter. ;
G. All trash facilities shall be enclased.
H. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Design
Review Guidelines, Section 18,54.050 D3.
I
2
� y
. ` � � �
I. Any applicant who applies for a conditional use permit for the purpose of
constructing employee housing, shall not be required to pay a conditional use
permit application fee.
J. The provisions set forth in Section 18.57.020, subsections B, C, D, and E shall
be incorporated into a written agreemsnt in a form approved by the town attorney
which shatl run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the
written approva! of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the oounty
clerk and recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permft for the construction
of an EHU.
K. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from
any EHU to any clwelling unit it may be attached to.
L; '�'he;owner`iaf eac� �NU�shall rent�e ur�it ai#�rrionthty rental:r�te consa�teiit
With �r��wer th�n!;fhas�r��rket rat�s p�e�atgnt f�r stm�lar;pr���rtieS in;:ihe Town oi
S/ai�� :'
M: �'he Tbwn �f Vail F1vusGr�g A�th,ority wi�l r�etei�tine the m�rliet��f��b�sed an tt�e
study of ather units of comparabls size; IQCation,;qualtty.�r�d amenities �k�roughout the
Town. The.�arket:r�te,sh�U be bas�d on an �ver��e of �m�nit�ium of:#ive:r.enta! rates
of comparable units. If the.unit'is not rented'and is>not ava�t�fal�;at#he�market rate it
shall be d�termined to be in noncompliarrce. '�n ��cl�bon, ta�ny o��r pe�aaliies and
resttictions prdvided herein, a un�#.found to be in nancomplzanae:shalt be su�jectito
�, publicatio��s determiried by ih� Nausing Authority;:
Section 2
Section 18.57.050 Tvpe II - Emplovee housina unft
A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of an EHU on lots in the single-family,
two-family, and primary/secondary zone districts which meet the minimum lat size
requirements for said zone districts.
B. General conditions:
�- �t shaii be a conditionaf use in the single-family residential, two-family
residential and primary/secondary residential zone districts.
2. If shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum Iot size
requirements fior tptdl io�a��a of the zone district in which the lot is Iocated,
3
.
� � �
3. It shall be iocated within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling ar be Iocated
within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.d�Ol - design guidelines
duplex and primary/secondary development. lt may also be located in, or attached ta, an
existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided
that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipai. Code is reduced or eiiminated.
4. It shall not be counted as a dwelEing unit for the p�rposes of calculating density.
Mowever, it shalf contain kitchen facilities and a bathraom; as defined in Chapter 18.04
- Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling
unit in addition to the iwo dwelling ursits which may already exist on the lot. Only one
Type II EHU shall be allowed per fot.
5. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred square feet, nor more than
nine h�ndred square feet. An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the
Community Develapment Department of the Town of Vail for additionai GRFA nat to
exceed five hundred square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The
applicant shall submit an application for the additional GRFA on a form provided by the
Community Deveiopment Department. Approval or denia! of the request shall be made
by the Design Review Board in accordance with Section 18.54.040, If an applicant
obtair�s Design Review Board approval for five hundred square feet of additianai GRFA
far the EHU, he or she shail not be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to
Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential �loor Area of this code for either unit an
the iot. If an applicant obtains Design Review Board approval for not more than two
hundred fifty square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall be entitled to
receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 18.7i - Additional Gross Residential
Floor Area of this code for one dwelfing unit on the lot.
6. It shall have not more than two bedroams.
7. No more than two adults and one child not older than sixteen years af age shall
reside in a one-bedroom Type I! EHU. No more than two adults and iwo children not
older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a two-bedroom Type II EHU.
�. Each Type II EHtJ shall be required to have no less than one parking space for
each bedroom located therein. However, if a one bedroom Type II EHU excaeds six
hundred square feet, it shall have two parking spaces. All parking spaces required by
this code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists
4
. . ,
• � .
, � � �
upon the property which is proposed for a Type II EHU at the time a building permit is
issued, o� if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling,
not less than one af the parking spaces required by this subsection shall be enclosed.
A three hundred square feet GRFA crerJit shaH be alfowed for#he construction of one
enclosed parking space for the Type !I EHU.
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 effect the validiry of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ardinance,
and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardfess of the fact
that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 4
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of #he Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 5
The repea! or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal 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 of by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or
any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 6
�ii byiaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith
are repealed to the extent only af such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
5
.
` - � � � .
INTRODUCED, R�AD ON FIRST READING, APPROVED ANp ORD�RED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 5th day of July, 1994. A public hearing shall be held
hereon on the 19th day of July, 1994, at the regular meeting of the Town Councii of the Town
of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
� �'
Margaret A. Osterfass, Mayor �
ATTEST:
�t�°. �'1�C�c��,�.�� _
Holly McCut hc eon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND OFiDERED PUBLISHED
uz �r,�eC this�9�day of- �Tu.2y , 1994.
Margar A. Ostertoss, May r
Al'1'EST:
• 7 C
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
6
� �
v
• ` � � �
� � � �
� Q� � � �
E� (� Q� � � � '� � � N �
V � O o� QuQi � U � C� �
_ v�
: m „ �
a� � � � a � o � � U N �
� v o � .
Lp' � � ° �' n. ° ap ro cmi o0
R! Q1 d O � N � � N q�j ta N �� V
a � � � QIr t- S] r � r r � � �
� 1 C
'f+ � �( ' V � —
Y IL � ii u'_. � �"' � �
� � � �
� c
Z m a � �
� � � 3 .v �
� � a
o � a z c� �, �r ,.., a
z
�
�
o�c zmFo
W
° — Q a ¢
� � D � Q z cv Cv Z Z
�
> > �
W � p
`'' Q �� � U U U on
FN- Q 5 Q o � nW.. aw. o
z
� n.
z � � oa� a�i
N d � 'fl � V
� C3 "r (n � N !n
� O a° i � � z i z z
_
� n
�
� c�v � � Z ° a�
p � }
�
a
� N � � � �
c
' p � � N � f�
'"` q)
a Gl r.. .D 0 � � O
� a r��.. � � ¢ � Q� (+7 O
N � � o p � O O p N
O r,
� � � �t RS C7 (�7 � N O
W
� � �
O � � C [`�
H � �p p o a u's c� o
WO U .:. r o o ci ,=
N
- � d1 NC E p
�' � .,�-. 0 5 O 0
fl} � O
«. � � � o •� � ¢ ¢ � �
J Q E ...�.I � � O Z Z N N
�
L
t� � �"` � Q ` Q �
� fA � �, � �l � C� � _ � iT
� � Q1 . � � ¢ � Q �
� LL :ti � � � n C� V !) fY' n f'1 � C1 rT c� U
_
�+� W ° .� ��i ° � = JfAm � 2uU3c� � ;=
� 3 3 �
_ � 3 � � � °-' �-' o � U �<� � I� UU � � ,� a�
C O •� m c3� � � � U ,;',:� � •� v�i
� N = � rng � � UDaC?:'a UpaU:f� — m �
NC] a 2 ¢ OtntL � � [LU::a tr � Cl. U`:n. 2C[ o
«
x
— � > a'' �
= a � � �' Q Q- v�i �
w r �- F-- � � � a!!�� �.
(p E
N
m
C � O O � G�D �' �
p � C7 �
�d `� tn �j l j � t� * " u
�
� �/� � W 00 ap �
VI T �"' � �
T f r 4
U
� � � . : . .� . . . . . .� . ...
t - �. � � . � � � . . � . . '. . . . . .. .
� � � � . . . . . . . � .. . � ; . . . . . . .
� MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: August 23, 1999
SUBJECT: Potential revisions to the Employee Housing regulations, the Primary/Secondary
and Two-Family Zones Districts, and the Nonconfiorming Use chapter of the
Zoning Regulations. Additionally, the proposed new Affordable Housing zone
district.
Staff: Dominic Mauriello
On June 15, 1999 the Comr=�unity Development Department presented#o the Town Council
some potential revisions o the Town Code having impact on the provision of employee housing in
the Town's duplex zone districts, Two-Family Residential and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts
presented. Additionally, staff presented a proposal to create a new Affordable Housing zone
district, which would be a district similar to the GU zone district in that the development
standards would be prescribed by the PEC.
• For the purpose of discussion, staff has divided the proposal into three sections. One dealing
directly with changes to the Employee Housing Unit chapter of the Zoning Regulations, another
dealing with other changes to the code which have indirect impacts on employee housing and a
section dealing with the proposed zone district for affordabie housing.
As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the communiry stated that the
Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units
(EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified
in order to ensure ihat the Zoning Regulations are truly "promoting" employee housing rather than
acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town
Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should
work to resolve these issues.
The tollowing is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs:
• Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for
other dwelling units
• Restricting the sale of a Type 1 EHU and requiring that it be a rental prooerty
• Taking away the right to do a"250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used
• Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots
: • Not providing GRFA credits for multiple-family EHUs (Type Ill)
• Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density
.
Page 1 of 5 .,
Pr,EVERYOtiE�PEC�vIEMOS\99\EI�IJ3.DOC TOWNOFNAIL�
; �
R
' . - . : - �.. � . . � . . . �
�
Summary of Potential Zoning Text Changes
Chapter 13, Employee Nousing
1. Deed Restrictions/Enforcement
This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for
a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed
so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The
current compliance statement provides for"publication" of the violation with the Housing
Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing
that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not
meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy
requirements.
Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of
renta! activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit(rom the owner. This will aid with
the enforcement of EHUs.
Deed restricfions are also being added for new Type V!EHU wh;ch are units similar to the
Vail Commons units and Red Sandstone, where the appreciation on the unit is capped.
2. Development Standards
This proposal includes an amendment to [he development standards allowing a Type I �
EHU(those allawed on lots less ihan 15,000 sq. ft.) which is /ess than 500 sq. ft. to be
detached from the main structure if consfructed in conjunction with a two car garage.
Staff believes this gives flexibility with design on smaller lots without compromising the
overall quality of development.
3. Application Procedure
This section;s proposed to be amended fo allow existing dwe(ling units fo be deed
restricted adminisfrafively. Additiona/!y, this section wou/d allow i!legal or nonconforming
units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Uniform Building
Code and can meet the Town's parking requiremenfs. This will allow EHUs to be created
without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of
substandard dwelling units/lock-offs.
4. Changes by EHU Type
A. Type I (2�� �nit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.)
• Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot
must be deed restricted to allow sale)
• Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.)
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5%for lots with an
EHU •• Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants
Page 2 of 5
UVAIL\DATA\EV ERYOri'E\PECU�fEMOS`99\EH[:3.DOC
- .
`
� • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed II
B. Type il {3�d unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft. +. A rental unit}
• Allowed as a permitted use (currentiy, requires a conditional use permit)
• Units allowed to appiy for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Maximum size +ncreased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit)
• Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants (inhabitants regulated
by Zoning Regs. and Building Code)
• Removai of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed
C. Type Iil (rental unit in multipie-family, residential cluster)
• Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit (no credit currently exists)
• Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements, but no less than 2 per
unit
• Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed)
• Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft.
maximum for dweiling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style
building
• Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and
Type !V as 0.333 of a dwelling unit)
• Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants
D. Type IV {multiple family, dormitory)
• Etiminated as a category but rolled into Type III
. • None exist today
F. Type V (Hillside Residential—Spraddle Creek)
� Removal of requirement that 50%of the parking be enclosed
G. Type VI {New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone)
• Allowed as permitted use in Single/Two-Family/P/S zone districts, Agriculture
and Open Space and conditional use in ail other districts
• EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental)
• Density, site coverage, GRFA, etc. based on the zone district
Chapter 6 (C and D)—Primary Secondary and Two-Famity Residential Zone Districts
Minimum Lot Size Requirement
The minimum lot size requirement in the PrimaryiSecondary and Two-Family Residential Zone
districts of 15,000 sq. ft. has an impact on the number of EHUs property owners are willing to
develop and an impact on redevelopment and upgrading of these units.
The 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement dates back to 1973 with the first full-scale re-
codification of the Zoning Code (the i 969 Zoning Code required only 10,000 sq. ft. lots). That
minimum lot size was applicable to platting occurring mostly in the Vail Viliage and Vail Valley
• fiiings. When the West Vail areas (1986—87) and the East Vail (1974) areas were annexed, the
Town's zoning was applied to lots platted in Eagle County without regard #or the Countys lot size
Page 3 of 5
\;V AIL\DATA\EVERYO\`E\PEC��IEMOS�991EHU3.DOC
- �
requirements of the time. �
There are approximately 936 lots in the Town of Vaii that are zoned Two-Family or Two-Family
Primary/Secondary which are undeveloped, developed with a single-family home; or a two-family
residence (i.e., this number does not include properties developed with multiple family projects).
Of these 936 lots, staff estimates that 32% (300 lots) of these lots have lot sizes less than
15,Q00 sq_ ft. Staff was not able to break down the number of lots by specific lot size. This
ability wiil be availabie in the near future with the implementation of our geographic information
system (GIS). ,
There have onfy been 20 Type I EHUs created in the Town. Property owners that currentiy have
lots less than 15;000 sq. ft. with a nonconforming second dwelling unit are noi aliowed to add
square footage unless they deed restrict the second unit on the property. Many property owners
are not willing to deed restrict their aiready existing unit and therefore the EHU is not created and
generally speaking the properties are not upgraded. Another problem is that on several of these
smaller Iots, two units exist on the lot by separate owners. They face the same deed restriction
prablem.
What are the potential solutions?
1. Lower the minimum lot size requirement in the Two-Family and Primary/Secondary zone
districts to a level that includes the majority of lots. This will allow lots to be constructed with
2 dwelling units and a Type II EHU. We betieve the result, in the long run, will be more EHUs
created. Staff would propose reducing the minimum lot size to 10,000 sq. ft.—12;000 sq. ft.
range, with a provision that this only applies to existing lots that already have lot sizes less
than 15,000 sq. ft. Any resubdivision ar new subdivision would have to meet the 15,000 sq. •
ft. requirement. This provision would prevent the assimilation of lots with the intent to create
new small lot subdivisions.
2. Keep the minimum lot size requirement, but allow lots to be developed as a single-family
home (no change), one dwelling unit plus a Type I EHU (no change), or two dwelling units
with a required Type II EHU (new). These changes, we be(ieve, will result in a net increase in
the number of EHUs and just as importantly, result in redevelapment of older properties.
3. In addition to the above, allow lots with 2 existing units that were legally deeded to separate
parties to add allowable square footage without deed restrictions required. This would
essentia(ly promote the nonconformity and allow it to continue. By allowing #2 above, the
deed restriction dilemma could be resoived by one of the owners providing an EHU, so that
option could help resolve this unique problem. Another solution to this problem could also be
utilizing our variance process and alfow a variance in these situations and allow residents ta
expand their homes. This would require acceptance that having two owners of such a
property is a hardship warranting the issuance of a variance. Staff believes this to be a
viable solution.
Efifect of Propos�ci Changes an GRFA, Site Coverage,and Landscape Area
Current Regulations Proposed Regulations
14,000 sq. ft. lot 14,000 sq. ft. lot
(dwelling unit plus Type I EHU) (either DU + Type I ENU or 2 DUs +
Type Il EHU}
GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) 3,500 sq. ft. (base) �
Page 4 of 5
\\VAIL\DATA\EVERYONE�PEC�IviEMOS�991EHLi 3.DOC
.
�
+850 sq. ft. (credits} +850 sq. ft. (credits)
� +250 (EHU credit) +500 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
4,600 sq. ft. 4,850 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,800 sq. ft. (max.) 2,800 sq. ft.
+700 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
3,500 sq. ft. {max.)
Landscape Area: 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) 8,400 sq. ft. (min.)
-700 sq. ft. (EHU credif�
7,700 sq. ft. (min.)
Affordable Housing Zone District
Staff has drafted a framework for a new zone district targeted at empioyee housing. The
proposal wouid be to establish a zone district that could be applied to properties ensuring that
once developed, they remain as empioyee housing in perpetuity. This could be applied to
existing projects (i.e., Red Sandstone) as well as future projects (i.e., Mt. Bell site). The
proposed district was modeled after the General Use zone district which lists ali uses as
conditional uses and requiring the PEC to set the development standards for the project.
Therefore, ali projects wouid be subject to review and approval through a Town review process.
The proposed framework is attached.
•
�
Page�of 5
\\VAIL\DATA\EVERYONE\PEC�'vIEMOS�\EH[;3.DOC
- �
, .
Revised August 16, 1999 �
CHAPTER 13
EMPLOYEF HOUSING
SECTION:
12-13-1: Purpose
12-13-2:Applicability
12-13-3: General Requirements
12-13-4: Requirements by Empioyee Housing Unit (EHU) Type
12-13-1: Purpose.
The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on
exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a
strong, high quality and consistently available work force.To achieve such a work force, the
community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability of housing
plays a critical role in creating quafity living and working conditions for the community's work
force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in
sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with
the private sector in ensuring housing is available.
i2-13-2: Appiicability.
A. Chapter Provisions fn Addition:The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the
requirements set forth in each zone district where employee housing units {EHU) are permitted
by this Chapter and all other requirements of this Code. .
8. Controlling Provisian: Where the provisions or requirements of this Chapter conflict with the
provisions or requirements set forth in any zone district or any other requirements of this Code,
the provisions af this Chapter shall controL
12-13-3: Genera{ Requirements.
This section provides general requirements which are applicable to EHUs.
A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type I, II, III, and V.
1. No employee housing unit which is constructed in accordance with this Chapter
shall be subdivided or divided into any farm of time shares, interval ownerships, or
fractional fee.
2. For EHUs which are leased, they shall be leased only to tenants who are full-time
employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period
less than thirty (30)consecutive days. For the purposes of this Chapter, a ful�-
time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours
each week. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate
consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in
the Town. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a
period to exceed 4 consecutive months.
� �
,
1
� c
� '
nthnr nc�n-�Itic�c�-�nrl rcectrirtinnc nrrnririnrl 1�r�rnin a ��ni+fni�nrl tn hc� in
tttStti°rrc7-c - . .
3. For an E!-?U which can be sold separately, the EHU must be used by the owner of
the EHU as a permanent residence. For the purpose of this paragraph, a
permanent residence shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is
fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of
returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of
absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the town staff shall take
the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account:
business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other
ta�c purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if
any, location of personai and real property, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty '
(30) days prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser
shall submit an application to the Department of Community Development
documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and
shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria.
4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each empioyee housing unit
within the Town which is constructed following the effect+ve date of this Chapter
shall submit two (2) copies of a-���a sworn affidavit on a form to be obtained
• from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development
Department ' ' setting
forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or
owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each
tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in
Eagle County.
3. The provisions set forth in this subsection (A) shall be incorporated into a written
agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land
and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town_
Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an ENU.
B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type VL
All Type VI Employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an
agreement in a form and substance acceptable to the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
C. Development Standards.
1. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in
Title 12 except as specifically provided in herein.
2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
• 3. Ail surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12-
2
' � . . , . . - . . . . � . - . . . . .
11, Design Review. •
4. Each EHU shali have its own entrance. There shail be no interior access from
any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached ta
. 5. An EHU may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (whether located in
a required setback or not), ,
�^�'����r, provided that no existing parking required by the Town Municipal
Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type i EHU which has 500 sq. ft. or less of
GRFA, maV be considered for physical separation from the primary unit if it is
constructed in coniunction with a two car qaraqe and is otherwise compatible with
the surroundinq properties does not have an adverse impact on veqetation and
does not dominate the street. The Desiqn Review Board shail review such
requests for separation.
6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom_
D. Appiication Requirements.
1. Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee
housing shali not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee.
2. EHU applications requiring a conditional use permit are subject to review and
approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission as provided for in
Chapter 12-16, Conditionai Use Permits. . ',
3. EHU appfications which do not require a canditional use permit shall be reviewed I
by the Community Qevelopment Department subject to a Design Review
Application.
4. Anv existinq leqallv developed dwellinq unit in the Town of Vail mav be converted
to an EHU administratively bv the Town without obtaininq a conditional use permit
as applicable. Dwellinq units and lock-off units which exist as of the date of this
ordinance but which are nonconforminq with respect to density and GRFA may be
canverted to an EHU administrativelv bY the Town as lonq as they otherwise
comply with the development standards and parkinq requirements found herein
and compfy with the Buildinq Code reauirements of the Town of Vail. Uqon beinq
converted to an EHU per this section, such dwellinp units shall be considered
legallV conforminq EHUs.
�
3
�
12-13-4: • EHU Requirements by Type. � . �
� EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site Additional Site Coverage Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density
permitted by right or Trensference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Maximum �
by conditional use GRFA ot an �
EHU
- Type I Permitted Use: The EHU mav be GRFA: Site Coveraoe' Allowed 300 sq.h.of Per Chapter 12- Per Zone District Counls as �
. Prmary/Secondary sold or The EHU is emilled lo an The site is emitled to an garage area per 10 as a dwelling � 2nd unil on
� Residemial, transterred as additional 500 sq.h.GR�FA additional 5%of site coveraoe enclosed vehicle unit. �oP�y.
Two�Fanily Residential separate unit on or EHU. space at a maximum
(all with lois less ihan the oroqertv. ��� of 2 parldng spaces
� 75,000 sq.h.) � a�AiaeaalSRFA�xider Landscape Nea' (600 sq.h.).
. - . �� The site is eNitled to a �
. � (Previously �eduction of landscape area bv
required deed �� 5%(reduc2d to 55%of site .
resiriction on both areal tor EHU.
units to allow sale) .
Type II Permined Use: The EHU shall riot The EHU is emitled to an N�A . � Nlowed 300 sq.fl.ot 1 parlting space 300 sq,h.min. ��Owed as .
� Sinale-Familv be sold or � additional 500 sq.fl.GPFA addoional garage area per bedmom, 3rd unit on
Resideniial,TWD-F2RIIIV ��nsferred credit.�reve�a-siFa lorthe EHU. unless EHU �•200 sa.ft. �o�nY
Residential. separately from shaN-aet-�eallewe� exceeds 600 sq. max. Does not
Primary/Secondary the unit it is a�ditieaaF6RFA�u�ea � h.of GRFA,then wun�as
� Residential.Aaricul�ure associated with.� S�He it requires 2 density. .
&Ooen Soace �� parking spacea
. . . . lesswwikze$-tJ�ea-26B�sq: �
. . . Ses9en-4-2--16§:
�� - - - . . . --�- � � . � - �_ . . . .. . . : . . _ . .. ._ . . . �. . � . . . � - 'i
4
, - � �
EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ AddlHonal GRFA/Site �dition��Site Cover�e Garage Credit Parking Minfmuml Densiry
/ eauc andscape ea
_ permitted by right or Translerence Coverage Maximum
6y conditional use GRFA of an .
EHU
Type III Conditbnal Use: The EHU may be EHU's are entitled�0 500 N�A N/A #�ar�tia�-c�a6e A. Dweili�o Not counted
Residential Cluster sold or transferred sa.h.of additionai GRFA per-4e�resir� u' as densiN.
Low Density Mui�iple- separa�ely. er u � anles�EFiU format
Family �
� Madum Density b-�6RFMHea 300 sa.ft.min.
Muhiple-Famity . �� 7.200 so.h.
High Density Multiple- �aees max.
Family
Public Accommodalion Per Chapter 12- B. Dormitory
� Commercial Core 7 10,however,no tormat
� Commercial Core 2 less than 2 200 sq.R.min.
Comrnercial Core 3 parking spaces 500 sa.k max.
� Commercial Service � per unit.
Center
Merial Business
- Parking Disinct � .
Gene�al Use � � .
� Ski Base/Recreation �
. �e-4u �.i� �� W/A � � �S 298-64-q=-a+i� 9�322-e(�a
��- �- �
Fk���eatiaEF,IasteF se�arately
��e- �
���f` ipe-RE�
��
�'�1��-
�Y
A�Ii�Asser�e�atiea �
6eramewia�6ere-i �
E�eramersFalGere-B .
6err�ewiaFSete3 . � . . �
6emraefsiatSewiee � .
Ge�ter
fuieFial�Busisaess � .
� AaFItia�Aielrisi . .
6eaeral-dUa . .
fae-Bas�eFReereaiiea . �
Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled to N�A The EHU is not Per Chapter 12- 1,200 sq.fl.max. Counts as
Hillside ResideNial � be sold or addAioral GRFA. enlitled to additional �0 as a dweliing � 2nd untl on
iranslerred garage area credt. unh. property.
separately irom
the unit it is �ed
. associated with. �leag�rwsF�e
eRSlece�
5 .
• � • •
, . �
EHU �g districts Ownershlp/ Additional GRFA/Sile Addition ite Coverage Garage Credlt Parking Minimuml �ensity •
' permitted by rfght or Transferance Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Maximum .
by conditional use � GRFA of an
EHU
Tvce VI Permilted Use: � The EHU mav Shall 6e determioed bv N� Shall be detertnined Per Chaoter 12- Shall be Per Zonina
Sinale-familv onlv be sold or Zonina on propertv. hv the PEC. 70 as a dwellina determined bv in Sinalr
� Residential.Two- transterred � unit. the PEC. familv,Two- .
� Familv Residenllal, seoaratelv. (amilv.and
Two-famflv
PrimarvfSecondarv
. Primarv/Sec
. Resfdential EHU covered bv � . onda
Aqricukore&Ooen deed restrictlons � • ResidenUal
. � � for Tvpe VI EHU . . � Dis[ricts.
. Le Section
Conditlonal Use: ���
Shall be
flesidential Clusler � determined
� Low DensiN Multiplr bv the PEC
Famil . in other
Medium�ensiN zone
Multiole-Familv districts.
H�ah Densitv Multiplr .
Famil
Puhlic
� Accommodation � � �
Cammercial Core 1 �� � .
� Commerclal Core 2 � � � � �
Commercial Core 3 � �
� Commercial Service
Center
Arterial Business � � .
�kinq Pistrlct �
� � General Use
Ski BaselRecreation
F:\EVERYONE\DOM\EHUGODE3.WPD
_ _,
�' _
_
_
_ _
6
i � � � . . . . . _ .
. ' a
I.ast printed 08/16/99 2:25 PM .
Revised August 16, 1999 �
Chapter 9
Special and iltiscellaneous Districts
ARTICLE D. AFFORDABLE HOUSING(AH)DISTRICT
SECTION:
i2-9D-1: Purpose
12-9D-2: Permitted Uses
12-9D-3: Conditional Uses
12-9D-4: Accessory Uses .
12-9D-5: Development Standards
12-9D-1: PURPOSE:
The Affordable Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for affordable and
employee housing whicb, because of the nature and cha.racteristics of affordable and
em�loyee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards
prescribed for other zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide
development standards especially prescribed for each pairticular development proposal or
projcct necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Scction 12-1-2 of this Title and to
provide for the public welfare. The Affordable Housin�District is intended to ensure that
affordable and empioyee housing permitted in the District are appropriately located and �
\\V AIL�DATA�EV E RYONE\D OIME HU-HO US\HO USING 1.DOC
i
I
� t t • � . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . � .. . . . . . . . . .
� �. . . � . . . . . . . . .. . . � . . . . . _ .
.� . . � . . - � . . .
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to
Empioyee Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirements in the
Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage
Standards.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On June 15, 1999 the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council
some potential revisions to the Town Code having impact on the provision of employee housing
in the Town's duplex zone districts, Two-Family Residential and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
� Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts
presented.
As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the
Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units
(EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified
in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly"promoting" employee housing rather than
acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town
Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should
work to resolve these issues.
The following is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs
• Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for
other dwelling units
• Restricting the sale of a Type I and Type ll EHU and requiring that it be a rental
property
• Taking away the right to do a"250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used
• Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots
• Not providing GRFA credits for multiple-family EHUs (Type III)
• Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density
�
Page 1 of5 •�
F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEi�fOS\99\EHLJ_S13.DOC TOWNOFYAIL�y
� ! S ' A . . � � . � . . . . .
. . . . �. . . . . l
II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS •
PlanninQ and Environmental Commission:
Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town CounciJ.
The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council
on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail
Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The
staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations.
Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text
proposaL
Town Council:
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments.
The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of
the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact
on the general welfare of the community.
Design Review Board:
Action: The DRB has lYO review authorify on code amendments. �
111. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments
to Chapter 13 of the Zoning Regulations subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed regulations are consistent with the development objectives of the
Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use plan.
2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses and
generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail.
VI. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING TEXT CHANGES
Chapter 13, Employee Housing
1. Deed Restrictions/Enforcement
This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for
a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed
so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The
current compliance statement provides for"publication" of the violation with the Housing
Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing �
that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not
Page 2 of 5
F:IEVERYONE�PECVv1EMOS�99�EHi1 S13.DOC
1 � ! • •
. meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy
requirements.
Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of
rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with
the enforcement of EHUs.
Language has been added to the purpose section allowing for the administrative creation
of incentives and the development of the clearing house concept. Staff is currently
developing pians for implementation of these concepts and wiil present these to the PEC
at some point in the future.
2. Development Standards
This proposal no longer inc/udes a provrsion for detaching garages with EHUs on small
lots at the direction of the PEC. A standard for occupancy has been added allowing no
more fhan two persons per bedroom to occupy an EHU.
3. Application Procedure
This seciion is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed
restrrcted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow legal nonconforming
un+ts to be deed restricted as (ong as they otherwise conform fo the Uniform Building
Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This will ailow EHUs to be created
without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of
� substandard dwelling units/Iock-offs.
Additionally, a provision has been added codifying the first come, first serve n.rle for Type
ll EHUs. Addifional/y, any p�oposal for more than 250 sq. ft. of additional GRFA for an
EHU shall require approval of all owners of the property.
The proposal also includes waiving the DRB fees for a project. Other fee waivers can be
developed administratively to encourage the development of EHUs.
4. Changes by EHU Type
A. Type I (2"d unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.)
• Aflowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot
must be deed restricted to allow sale)
• Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.)
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5%for lots with an
ENU
• Removal of age limitations
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (a!I parking
required on-site)
B. Type II (3`d unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft.}
• Allowed as a conditional use (no change)
� • Allowed to be sold separately subject to approval of property owners
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardtess of EHU presence
Page 3 of 5
F:IEVERYONE�PEC�MEYIOS\99�EHLJ_S 13.DOC
1 � � � . ' . . . . � . . . . . .
• Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currentiy 900 sq. ft. limit) �
• Removal of age limitations
• Removai of requirement that 50%of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
C. Type lll (rental unit in multiple-family, residentiai cluster)
• Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit(no credit currently exists)
• Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements
• Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed)
• Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft.
maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style
building
• Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and
Type IV as 0.333 of a dwelling unit}
• Removal of age limitations
D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory)
• Eliminated as a category but rolled into Type III
+ None exist today
F. Type V (Hiilside Residential—Spraddle Creek)
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
G. Type VI (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone) •
• Allowed on any existing dwelling unit in the town
• EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental)
Effect of Proposed Changes on GRFA, Site Coverage,and Landscape Area
Current Regulations Proposed Regu{ations
14,000 sq. ft. lot 14,400 sq. ft. lot
(dwelling unit plus Type I EHU} (either DU +Type I EHU or 2 DUs +
Type II EHU}
GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) 3,500 sq. ft. (base)
+425 sq. ft. (primary credit) +425 sq. ft. (primary credit)
+425 sq. ft. (EHU credit) +425 sq. ft. (EHIJ credit)
+250 (EHU credit) +500 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
4,600 sq. ft. 4,850 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,800 sq. ft. (max.) 2,800 sq. ft.
+700 s4. ft. (EHU credit)
3,500 sq. ft. (max.)
Landscape Area: 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) �
-7D0 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
7,700 sq. ft. (min.)
Page 4 of 5
F:\EVERYONE�PEC�MEMOS�99�EHli_S 1?.DOC
� i ' �
� 5. Minimum Lot Size in the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts
The PEC did not express much interest in the consideration of lowering the minimum lot
size in these zone districts. Staff continues to believe that by lowering the minimum lot
size, even by 1,000 sq. ft., may encourage redevelopment of homes and the creation of
Type II EHUs. The majority of lots of less than 15,000 sq. ft: are located in East and
West Vail. These lots were annexed to the Town of Vail and applied zoning that did not ,
reflect the plats that were recorded by Eagle County. These lots range from 9,000 sq. ft. '
to 15,000 sq. ft.
6. Existing Nonconforming Lots with Two Legally Created Ownerships
The PEC gave staff the direction not to propose code changes to solve this ownership
issue, but rather for staff and the PEC to recognize this ownership as a form of hardship
for the purpose of considering density variances. This wouid allow GRFA expansions to
these dwelling units without requiring that one dwelling unit be deed restricted as a Type I
tHU. Staff wili immediately implement this policy directive.
�
�
Page 5 of 5
F:�EVERYONEIPEC\MEMOS\99\EHU S13.DOC
,s : ' ' �
Revised August 30, 1999 �
CHAPTER 13
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
SECTION:
12-13-1: Purpose
12-13-2:Applicability
12-13-3: Generai Requirements
12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type
12-13-1: Purpose.
The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on
exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a
strong, high quality and c�nsistently available work force.To achieve such a work force, the
community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability of housing
piays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work
force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in
sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with
the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town may pursue additional incentives
administrativelv to encouraqe the development of employee housinq units. These incentives
mav include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in kind
services to owners and creators of emplovee housinq units. The Town of Vail or the Town's
desiqnee mav maintain a reqistry and publish lists of all deed restricted housing units created in
the Town to assist emplovers and those seekinq housinq. �
12-13-2: Applicability.
A. Chapter Provisions In Addition:The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the
requirements set forth in each zone district where employee housing units {EHU) are permitted
by this Chapter and all other requirements of this Code.
B. Controlling Provision: Where the provisions or requirements of this Chapter conflict with the
provisions or requirements set farth in any zone district or any other requirements of this Code,
the provisions of this Chapter shall controL
12-13-3: General Requirements.
This section provides general requirements which are applicable to EHUs.
A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type I, II; III, and V.
1. No employee housing unit which is �^^°+.,,,.+�,� ,., �,.,.,,ra�.,,.� ,.,;+ti qoverned bv
this Chapter shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval
ownerships, or fractional fee.
2. For EHUs which are leased, they shall only be leased to and occupied by tenants
who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be
leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this �
Chapter, a full-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty
(30) hours each week. The owner of each EHU sha{I rent the unit at a monthly
, 1
� i ��, ' R � . .
. • �,' � - . , - �. � � . � � ' � .- . .� � .
. rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar
properties in the Town. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain
vacant for a period to exceed 4 consecutive months.
ntF�or nnnaltioc�anrl roctri�tinnc nmvirlc�rl horoin � �mit fniinrl tn ho in
. r.,.,...,.....,., ..,.... ................. �....._�_ .._._.. , _.... .__.._ ... __ ...
��
3. For an EHU which can be soid separately, the EHU must be used by the owner of
the EHU as a permanent residence. For the purpose of this paragraph, a
permanent residence shail mean the home or piace in which one's habitation is
fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of
returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardiess of the duration of
absence. in determining what is a permanent residence, the town staff shail take
the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account:
business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other
tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if
any, location of personal and real properiy, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty
(30) days prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser
shall submit an application to the Department of Community Development
� documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set fiorth herein and
shall include an affidavit aifirming that he or she meets these criteria.
4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit
within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter
shall submit two (2) copies of,��e�e� a sworn affidavii on a form to be obtained
from the Community Deveiopment Department, to the Community Development
Department � setting
forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or
owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each
tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in
Eagle County.
3. The provisions set forth in this subsection (A) shall be incorporated into a written
agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land
and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town.
Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU.
S. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type VL
All Type VI Employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an
agreement in a form and substance acceptable to the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
� C. Development Standards.
2
1 1 � A . . . . � .
1. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in �
Title 12 except as specifically provided in herein_
2. All trash facilities shail be enclosed.
3_ All surface parking shai► be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12-
11, Design Review.
4. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from
any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to.
5. An EHU may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (whether lacated in
a required setback or not)� ^�nuir�c�rl 4ho „-,r",� :� ,,,,+ �,,,.,+a,�,.rth;., -,.,,, �*►,.,,.�
^^�'f� ����; provided that no existing parking required by the Town Municipa!
Code is reduced or eliminated.
6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom.
7. OccupancV of an of an emplovee housinq unit shall be limited to the maximum of
two persons per bedroom.
D_ Application Requirements. '
1. Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee �
housing shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee or
Desiqn Review application fee.
2. EHU applications requiring a conditional use permit are subject to review and
approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission as provided for in
Chapter 12-16, Conditional Use Permits.
3. EHU applications which do not require a conditional use permit shall be reviewed
by the Community Deveiopment Department subject to a Design Review
Application.
4. Applications for a Type II emplovee housinq unit which utilizes a GRFA credit of
greater than 250 sq. ft. shall require the signature of all owners of the property
and will be processed on a first come first served basis.
5. Anv existinq leqal non-conforminq dwellinq unit in the Town of Vail may be
converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaininq a canditional
use permit. Dwelling units and lock-off units which exist as of the date of this
ordinance but which are nonconforminq with respect to density and GRFA maV be
converted to a conforminq ENU administratively by the Town, as lonq as they
otherwise comply with the development standards and parkinq requirements
found herein and complv with the Buildinq Code requirements of the Town of Vail.
Upon being converted to an EHU per this secTion, such dwelling units shall be
considered leqally conforminq EHUs.
�
3
A � �� A
� E. En#orcement Provisions.
All employee housinq units qoverned by this title shall be operated and maintained in
accordance wit this title. Failure to do may resuit in enforcement proceedinqs in a court
of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with Chapier 3 of the Title.
.
�
4
� �• �
12-13-4; EHU Requirements by Type. ',
� EHU Zoning districts Ownership! Addilional GRFAJSite Additional Slte Coverage Garage Parking Minimum/ Densily
permitted by right or Transference Coverege 1Reduced Landscape Area CrediVStoroge Maximum �
� by conditional use Requirement GRFA of an
EHU
Type I Permitted Use: The EHU mav be GRFA: Site Coverace Allowed 300 sq.fl.of Per Chapter 12- PerZone Distnct. Counis as
Primary/Secondary sold or The EHU is entilled to an The site is enihled to an garage area per 10 as a dwetling 2nd unh on .
Residential, Iransierred as additional 500 sq.ft.GRFA addiional 5%o(sile coveracLe enclosed vehicle unil. property. �
Two-Family Residemial separate unit on for EHU. space at a mauimum
(all with lots less than the oropertv. �,��� of 2 parking spaces
15,000 sq.R.) a�aaa46P�FA�t»adeF Landscaoe Area: (600 sq.h.).
� (Previously ��5ef-N�e The site is entitled to a �
. required deed ��� reduction of landscaoe area bv �I units not . � �
� resiriction on both 5%Ireduced to 55%of site ,
. areal for EHU. consirucled with a �
uniis to albw sale) g_arage shall be
required a minimum
75 sq.fl.of storage
� � area in addition to - � � �
nortnal close�space � � � �
This 75 sa.ft shall be
a credil for storace �
onlv.
Type II Conditional Use: The EHU spalFnat The EHU is antitled to an N�A Nlowed 300 sq.ft.o( a-�arkiag-s�ase 300 sq.ft min. alrnved as
Sinde-Familv �be sold or addi6ond 500 sq.fl.GRFA addilional garage area �er�ke�reer:r, �,p00 sa.h. 3rd unit on
iransferred credit
Residential.Two-Fam�v ��6�'�-� forihe EHU. aa7ess�F�FkI max propeny.
Resideroial. separately from swal4r�e�§e-al{ewed Does not
exsse�s-69B�
PnmaLy/Secondarv 1he unit it is
� associated with. � NI units no� #--si�Aea cdensil s
Aesidential AariculWre consiructedwitha �`� Y�
&Open Space �--:-_o.._.._.;,.... ���� �reoe shall be �� .
APelications for ����� required a minimum Per Chaoter 12- . .
units to be sold � "°� 75 sa.fl.of storage � �
shall be sianed bv �� area in addition�o u0 as a dwelling �
all owners of normal cioset space. �
propertv and shall This 75 so.ft.shall be -
� . be I n a credit for storaae � �
accordinoto � g�, � �. �
Townhouse � �
� B��LII79 � � .
requiremenis �� � �
5
� � � , .
, �� ,
EHU Zoning districts Ownershipl Additional GRFA/Site p�d'tion ISite Cove e Gara e Credit Parkln Minimum/ Densi
/Reduce�Landscape�ea 9 9 ry
permitted by right or Transference Cove�age Maximum
by conditional use GRFA of an
EHU
Type III Permitted Use: The EHU may be EHU's are entitled to 500 N'A N/A ��a�iags�ace p. Dwelllna Not counted
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 so�d or irans(erred sa.h.of additional GRFA �aF-§e�rsea+; � unit s de s' .
Lionshead Mixed Use 2 separately. Per unit e�less-EFtN torma.
. � exseeds-6B&s�:
h-ef-6RFA-N� 300 sa.tt.min.
Conditional Use: �e�i�es2 1,200 sa.ft.
Residemial Cluster � �' tnax'
Low Density Muitiple- �
� - Per Chapter 12- B. Dormitory
Family � t0;l�eweveF,-ae fortnat
Medium Density
MuBiple�Family � �6 260 sq.it min. �
High Density Multiple- . 500 sa.ft max.
Family � � �� �
Public Accommodation -
Commercial Cae 7 - �
Commercial Core 2
Commercial Cae 3 �
Commercial Service
Center
MerialBusiness � �
Parking District
General Use �
Ski Base/Recreation �
�u 6end'Hiena4Lse: ���u'��''��� � � p�;q . � �T 9-2a2-eta .
sel�-eFiraRS{eFte� �e�EHkl: ,., _e
. �-�--N=-ma�f g�
�i�ent�uster se�rately
�aw-AeasitY-A4eNi�la 6der�arkia�+e
�Y �
A4e�ur�-BeasHj` � � � . .
��`
�W�le-
�Y
�
�4
. 6e�er&aF6eFe-B
6s�aewia46era3
G�
Feflter
#fefiaF�Bdsiaess .
��
6eaeraFl3ae �
Ski$aceFRes�eaNen
Type V Pertnftted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled 10 N�A The EHU is not Per Chapter 12- 1,200 sq.ri.mau. Coums as
Hillside ResideMial be sold or additional GRFA. entitled to additional 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on �
� �ransferred garage area aedit. unit. property.
6
, . �
� separalely from
� ihe uni�it is ggq�yj�
associa�ed with. �yo
easleced-
EHU Zoning districts Ov✓nership/ Additional GRFA/Slte Additional Site Coverage Garage Credit Parking Mlnlmum/ Densiry
permitted by rigM or Transference Coverage 1Reduced Landscape Area Maximum
by condilional use GRFA of an
EHU
Tvce VI Anv dwellinq unit The EHU mav Shall be determined 6v N=A Shall be determined Per Chaoter 72- Shall be S all be
� mav be desiqnated oniv be sold or zonina on pronertv. bv zonina on 10 as a dweliina determined bv determined
and deed restricted transferred prooertv, unit. zonina on bv zoninq
as a Tvoe VI separatelv. prooertv. on nronertv.
Emplovee Housina �
Unit.unless alreadv
desianated as an
emplovee housina
unit.
F:\EVERYONEIDOM\EHUCODE4.WPD
7
� � � . ' .
I
,
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 27, 1999
SUBJECT: A request for a final review of amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to
Empioyee Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirements in the
Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage
Standards.
Applicant: Town of Vaii
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
L DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On June 15, 1999 the Community Deve!opment Department presented to the Town Council
some potential revisions to the Town Code having impact on the provision of empioyee housing
in the Town's duplex zone districts, Two-Family Residential and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts
• presented.
The PEC has reviewed the proposal at its August 23, 1999 and September 13, 1999 meetings.
The PEC recommended several modifications to the proposal which have been incorporated into
the proposal.
As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the
Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units
(EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified
in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly"promoting" employee housing rather than
acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town
Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed ir the code and if staff should
work to resolve these issues.
The following is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs
• Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for
other dwelling units
• Restricting the sale of a Type I and Type I1 EHU and requiring that it be a rental
property
• Taking away the right to do a `�250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used
• Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots
• Not providing GRFA credits for multiple-family EHUs (Type III)
• Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density
•
,r.
Page 1 of 5 \' `1
F:IEVERYONE�PEC'uVIEMOS\99\EH[1 527.DOC TOWNDFYAIL �i
1
IL ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS •
Planninq and Environmentai Commission:
Action: The PEC is advrsory to the Town CounciL
The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Counci!
on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail
Comprehensive Plans and impact on the generai welfare of the community.
Staff:
The staff is responsibie for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The
staff advises the appEicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations.
Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text
proposal.
Town CounciL•
Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments.
The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of
the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact
on the general welfare of the community.
Desiqn Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments.
•
111. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approvaf of the proposed amendments
#o Chapter 13 of the Zoning Regulations subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed regulations are consistent with the development objectives of the
Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use plan.
2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses and
generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail.
V1. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING TEXT CHANGES
Chapter i3, Employee Housing •
1, Deed Restrictions/Enforcement (see attachment pages 1-2)
This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for
a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed
so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation_ The
current compfiance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing
Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing �
that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not
Page 2 of�
F:�EVERYONE�PEC\MEMOS\99\EHU_527.DOC
. meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy
requirements.
Additional(y, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of
rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn atfidavit from the owner. This will aid with
the enforcement of EHUs.
Language has been added to the purpose section allowing for the administrative creation
of incentives and the developmeni of the clearing house concept. Staff is currently
developing plans for impiementation of these concepts and will present these to the PEC
at some point in the future.
2. Development Standards (see attachment page 3)
This proposal no longer includes a provision for detaching garages with EHUs on small
lots at the direction of the PEC. A standard for occupancy has 6een added allowing no
more than iwo persons per bedroom to occupy an EHU.
3. Application Procedure (see attachment page 3)
This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed
restricted administratively. Addifionally, this section would allow lega!nonconforming
units to be deed restricted as long as ihey otherwise conform to the Uniform Buildrng
Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This wiil allow EHUs to be created
without going through a iengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of
• substandard dweiling units,'lock-offs.
AddifionaNy, a provision has been added codifying the firsf come, first serve rule for Type
!I EHUs. Additionally, any proposal for more than 250 sq. tt. of additiona!GRFA for an
EHU shail require appraval of all owners of the property.
The proposal also includes waiving the DRB fees for a project. Other fee waivers can be
developed administratively to encourage ihe development of EHUs.
4. Changes by EHU Type (see attachment pages 5-7}
A. Type I (2�d unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.)
• Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currentiy, both units on lot
must be deed restricted to allow sale)
• Ailowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currentiy only allowed 250 sq. ft.}
• U�its allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence
• Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an
EHU
• Removal of age limitations
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (ali parking
required on-site)
• Addition of 75 sq. ft. storage space credit
B. Type II (3`d unit ailowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft.)
� • Ailowed as a conditionai use {no change)
• Maintain as a rental unit and not allow sale
Page 3 of 5
F:�,EVER1'ONE�PEC`�fE�fOS\99\EHU S27.DOC
• Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence •
• Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit)
• Removat of age limitations
• Removai of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking
required on-site)
• Addition of 75 sq. ft. storage space credit
C. Type iil (rental unit in multiple-family, residentiai cluster)
• Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit(no credit currently exists)
• Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements
• Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed)
• Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft.
maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style
building
• Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and
Type IV as 0.333 of a dwelling unit)
• Removal of age limitations
D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory)
• Eliminated as a category but roiled into Type Iil
• None exist today
F. Type V (Hiliside Residentiai—Spraddle Creek)
• Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enc!osed (all parking
required on-site) •
G. Type VI (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone)
• Allowed on any existing dwelling unit in the town
• EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental)
Efifect of Proposed Changes on GRFA, Site Coverage,and Landscape Area
Current Regulations Proposed Regulations
14,000 sq. ft. lot 14,OOQ 5q. ft. lot
(dwelling unit plus Type I EHU} (dwelling unit plus Type 1 EHU)
GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) 3;500 sq. ft. (base)
+425 sq. ft. (primary credit) +425 sq. ft. (primary credit)
+425 sq. ft. (EHU credit) +425 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
+250 (EHU credit} +500 sq. ft. (EHU credit}
4,600 sq. ft. 4,850 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,800 sq. ft. (max.) 2,800 sq. ft.
+700 sq. ft. (EHU credifl
3,�00 sq. ft. (max.)
Landscape Area: 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) 8,400 sq. ft. (min.)
-700 sq. ft. (EHU credit)
7,700 sq. ft. (min.) �
Page 4 of 5
Fr,EVERYOtiE�PEC\.MEMOS199\EHU S27.DOC
.
. .
� 5. Minimum Lot Size in the Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts
(see attachment page 8)
The PEC did not express much inierest in ihe consideration of lowering the minimum !ot
size in these zone districts. Staff continues to believe that by lowering the minimum lot
size, even by 1,000 sq. ft., may encourage redevelopment of homes and the creation of
Type II EHUs. The majority of iots of less than 15,000 sq. ft. are located in East and
West Vail. These lots were annexed to the Town of Vail and applied zoning that did not
reflect the plats that were recorded by Eagle County. These lots range from 9,000 sq. ft.
ta 15,000 sq. ft.
The PEC at its September 13, 1999 meeting discussed this issue again. It appeared that
Commission thought that a change to 14,000 sq. ft. might be a good idea to test the
concept and that lowering the limit might encourage redevelopment. The proposai
inciudes having a provision that any new subdivisions would continue to have a minimum
lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. and that any existing deed restricted employee housing units
would have to be maintained and not eliminated_
6. Existing Nonconforming Lots with Two Legaliy Created Ownerships
The PEC gave staff the direction not to propose code changes to solve this ownership
issue, but rather for staff and the PEC to recognize this ownership as a form of hardship
for the purpose of considering density variances. This would allow GRFA expansions to
these dwelling units without requiring that one dwelling unit be deed restricted as a Type I
EHU. Staff will immediately implement this policy directive.
• 7. Incentives developed administratively
The PEC has recommended that continuing incentives be developed in order to
encourage appropriate use of EHUs in Town (i.e., annual ski pass). Also recommended
is that these incentives only apply to newer rental EHUs with the current deed restriction.
There#ore, if an owner with an older deed restriction would like to take advantage of any
new incentives that might be developed, they would have to update the deed restriction.
Statf is proposing that incentives be developed administratively and with Tow� Council
approval and not be codified, as they may need to change from time to time.
•
Page 5 of 5
F:IEVERYO'.VE\PEC\yIEMOS\99\EHU S27.DOC
�
. Approved October 11, 1999
Doug Cahiil said we shouid come up with a standard for other projects.
Russ Forrest expiained that the industry wide national average was based on square fooTage
based on use.
Jay Peterson explained that the difference in the numbers between staff and the applicant was
that part-time employees were not being taken into account.
John Schofield suggested doing more work with the numbers and asked for a straw poli on the
percentage 30%.
Doug Cahill said to use the appiicant's numbers; he agreed to 2:1; and 30%on in Town housing
and 40% out of Town.
Chas Bernhardt said 30% in Town based on the applicant's numbers with an assessment after 3
years and a bond in the future; 3:1 employees adjusted after 3 years and he had no decision on
the percentage of housing if housed down-valley.
Diane Golden stated in-Town housing would add vitality to the Town; 30% if housed in Town and
45% if housed down-valley. �
Tom Weber agreed with Chas; 30%; 3:1 ratio, as he felt this hotel would be attracting the more
professional employees_
• 8rian Doyon ihought to split the two numbers range; 30% in Town and 40% if housed down-
valley.
Galen Aasland said he would use the applicant's numbers; bond for 3 years and was ok with
30% in Town and 40%down-valley.
John Schofield feit there needed to be reconciliation in the numbers; 30%for both in Town and
down-valley housing, as the applicant shouldn't be penalized if no housing was available in
Town.
5. A request for a final review for amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to Employee
Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirement in #he Primary/Secandary and
Two-Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage Standards.
Applicant: Town of Vai}
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Tom Weber asked if the PEC could make policy changes.
Tom Moorhead said the PEC could advise Town Council on any policy changes.
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo. Ne said lowering the minimum lot size
requirement needed some resolution.
5
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 27,1999
�
Approved October 11, 1999 .
John Schofield stated for the record that ihere was no public present to comment.
Tom Weber said he was in favor of the ordinance changes, as it pertained to the rental units. He
said, in terms of incentives, that a possible separate curbcut to access the EHU couid be an
incentive. Ne feit that EHU's on top of garages should be separate from the existing house to
lessen the impact. He suggested looking at restricting by size and setbacks and not limit the
GRFA for the whole house. He said to get rid of GRFA completely, but to look at site coverage
closely with a larger lot.
Brian Dayon said garages with an EHU above could be built in front setback. He asked if there
was an existing EHU on-site and the house was torn down, coufd a single-family home be rebuilt
without an EHU.
Tom Moorhead said if the owner was no longer getting the EHU benefit, then yes.
Galen Aasland thought an ENU above a garage wouldn't work. He said we needed to trust a
written statement and not have owners sign affidavits. He said the current ordinance was
ineffective. He said incentives should be given to new units and only to old units if the deed
restrictions were updated.
Russ Forrest said they were cantemplating going to sworn affidavits as the newest form of deed ;
restriction far EHU's after 1994. '
Galen Aasland said the people needed to be accountable for the deed restrictions and that we I,
couldn't hold people in the past to the same rules. .
Doug Cahill said he was in favor of all the incentives and in favor of the curbcut in conjunction
with site coverage and garage separation.
Chas Bernhardt agreed with Doug.
Diane Golden was in favor of as many incentives as possible. She suggested crossing out the
sworn affidavit.
Dominic Mauriello said the sworn affidavit was for enforcement and an extra measure for
compliance, and was not intended to affect lawful owners, but those who were grossly violating
the regulations.
Tom Moorhead said there were penalties for putting false information in an affidavit.
John Schofield said this was a good first step to eliminate the road blocks and that incentives
ne�ded to be provided. He theught it was a disincentive to require consent of other property
owners in writing.
Dominic Mauriello stated that that would go away when allowing everyone to use their 250.
Planning and Environmental Commission
6 •
Minutes
September 27,1999
.
t
� Approved October 11, 1999
John Schofield suggested making a motion to eliminate the requirement for adjacent signatures
in 12-3-3, D4, since notification was given to adjacent property owners for conditional use
permits anyway.
Brian Doyon made a motion in accordance with the staff inemo with changes to 12-13-3, D4 to
eliminate the requirement for signatures of ail property owners and to amend the Development
Standards to allow EHU's to be detached if constructed in conjunction with a garage, subject to
Design Review.
Chas 8emhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Galen opposed.
6. A request for a worksession to discuss the findings and recommendations of#he Town of
Vail's 1999 Core Area Parking Analysis.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Brent Wilson
i
Brent Wilson gave a slide show in conjunction with his overview of the staff inemo.
Diane Golden asked if there was any data on the people that were turned away.
• Brent Wiison said on at least 15 days an overflow occurred, but that there was no data on how
many cars were turned away.
Tom Weber asked for a time attached to the study.
Russ Forrest said the "free after 3" program was for the benefit of emp(oyees.
Brent Wilson said he'd check with the Transportation Department to see if data was available for
the cars coming in for the "free after 3" program, but it was not incorporated into this memo.
Tom Weber asked for an evaluation of summer use.
Srent Wilson explained if the structure was not doing pay transactions, it would be difficult to
evaluate. He said the overflow was driven by peak times and/or events and we acknowledged
that some overflow was acceptable.
John Schofield asked for any pubiic input. There were no public comments_
Tom Weber said he was conc2rned about the low office space requirements and that �t was
excessive.
7
. Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 27,1999