Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-04 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:35 p.m. 2. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of May 7 and 21, 1991 meetings Andy Knudtsen B. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract of land generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space, Section 18.32, to Public Use District, Section 18.36. Applicants: Town of Vail and Vail Associates Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, on second reading, the ordinance to rezone the property described in Exhibit A of the attached ordinance., Backaround Rationale: On May 21, 1991, Council passed on first reading Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991. On May 13, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4-0 recommending approval of both the Land Use Plan change and the rezoning request. The criteria for amending the Plan and for rezoning the property are discussed in the attached PEC memo. The purpose of this request is to establish Public Use District zoning which will allow "Public Use Facilities" as conditional uses. If rezoned, the Town will apply for a conditional use permit to construct a snow dump. The Town is planning on leasing the land from the current owner, Vail Associates. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, on second reading. 7:50 p.m. 3. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, first Kristan Pritz reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential (GRFA), and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Request of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: On May 13, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the amendment to GRFA for multi- family developments. A motion to approve the amendment was made by Ludwig Kurz and seconded by Jim Shearer. The motion passed 4-0. The PEC allowed for a credit for stairways inside individual dwelling units. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, on first reading. 8:20 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, first Kristan Pritz reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.14.090, Density Control-Residential Cluster District; Section 18.16.090, Density Control-Low Density Multi- Family District; Section 18.18.090, Density Control-Medium Density Multi-Family District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: On May 13, 1991, the PEC reviewed this amendment and voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the request. This change compensates single dwelling units and two family dwelling units with 225 sq. ft. when this type of unit is constricted in RC, LDMF, or MDMF zone districts. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, on first reading. 8:50 p.m. 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, first Kristan Pritz reading, an ordinance repealing section 18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.04.360, Definition of Site Coverage; Section 18.14.110, Site Coverage-Residential Cluster; Section 18.16.110, Site Coverage-Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.110, Site Coverage-Medium Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.20.110, Site Coverage-High Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.22.110, Site Coverage- Public Accommodation District; Section 18.24.150, Site Coverage-Commercial Core I District; Section 18.26.120, Site Coverage- Commercial Core II District; Section 18.27.090, Site Coverage-Commercial Core III District; Section 18.28.120, Site Coverage- Commercial Service Center District; Section 18.29.090, Site Coverage-Arterial Business District; Section 18.32.110, Site Coverage- Heavy Service District; Section 18.21.110, Site Coverage-Agricultural and Open Space District; District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: This ordinance will allow for a consistent definition of site coverage in all zone districts. The request was recommended for approval by the PEC unanimously (4-0) on May 13, 1991. -2- Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, on first reading. 9:05 p.m. 6. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, first Jill Kammerer reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 25 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Peter Jacobs, Days Inn. Action Requested of Council: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, on first reading. Background Rationale: Approval of this SDD will allow the construction of a new three- story, 18,897 sq. ft., 37 unit, freestanding employee housing building along Chamonix Road at the northwest corner of the Days Inn property. On Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of the Chamonix Special Development District subject to the following conditions: (1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: (a) Sign and execute the required documentation in order to permanently restrict these housing units as rental units for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley for a period of not less than 30 consecutive days and to insure occupancy restrictions are met. (b) Submit a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Town Attorney. The Development Agreement will set forth the terms for a $50,000 contribution for the construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project site. (c) Obtain a geologic hazard study. In order to obtain a building permit, the applicant must institute any mitigation measures required under the study. (d) Test the soil adjacent to the fuel tank to insure no leakage has occurred. If the soil is contaminated, applicant must clean up the soil as required by the Colorado Department of Health - Underground Storage Tank Division and the Environmental Protection Agency. (2) Landscaping be increased per staff l recommendations to include: (a) Five additional Aspen in island at northern end of the parking area located east of the Days Inn building. (b) Additional landscaping in area east of pedestrian link between the Days Inn parking lot and Chamonix Lane. (c) Addition of one 8-foot, two 10-foot, and two 12-foot Spruce in planting area north of North Frontage Rd. (d) Eight additional Aspen in planting area east of the Days Inn parking lot and between the pedestrian links to McDonald's and the West Vail Mall. -3- (e) Additional landscaping in planting area south of employee building and north of the internal road way. (f) Additional landscaping in the planting area south of the internal road way and north of the pool. (3) East-West reorientation of existing trash enclosure north of the Shoppette building. (4) Elimination of three parallel parking spaces on north side of internal roadway, south of the employee building. (5) Elimination of pedestrian link adjacent to employee housing building between Chamonix Road and the parking area. (6) Modifying landscaping of area west of the employee building from wild flowers to manicured lawn. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, establishing SDD No. 25, the Chamonix Special Development District. 9:45 p.m. 7. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991, a Larry Eskwith resolution approving an amendment to the personnel rules by the Town Manager. Action Requested of Council: Pass Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991. Background Rationale: A section of the personnel rules dealing with how appeals of employee discipline are handled was unclear and needs to be amended. Staff Recommendation: Pass Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991. 9:55 p.m. 8. Appeal of a Design Review Board approval Andy Knudtsen allowing the Vail Recreation District to remove one tree in Ford Park and transplant another one. Action Requested of Council: Review the DRB decision. Background Rationale: On May 15, 1991, the DRB voted 5-0, approving the proposal to cut down a tree that was dying and to transplant another tree. The DRB conditioned the approval, requiring the VRD to plant additional trees if the transplanted tree dies. The VRD will submit a proposal for DRB approval if additional trees are needed. The tree that was dying was cut down on May 22, 1991. Staff Recommendation: Not applicable. 10:10 p.m. 9. Adjournment -4- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 7, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the ten-year employment anniversary award for Kurt Gordon, who is the Fleet Service Technician in the Public Works Department. Ron Phillips, Todd Scholl, and Kent Rose made positive remarks concerning Kurt's tenure with the Town. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was approval of~the minutes of the April 2 and April 16, 1991, meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve these minutes; Rob Levine seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was the Consent Agenda. Following a brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, second reading, until a final plat is recorded at the County. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Continuing Item No. 4 was the reading of Ordinances No. 10 and 12. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais-Mosely Subdivision to provide changes to Special Development District No. 22, that certain lot size and corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units and architectural guidelines, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1991, second reading. Modifications to deed restrictions on Manor Vail property located, between Vail Valley Drive and Ford Park, immediately north of the main Manor Vail building {Applicants: Town of Vail and Manor Vail). Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinances No. 10 and No. 12, with a second by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, first reading, adopting a fifth view corridor and revising the current language regulating view corridors. (Applicant: Town of Vail). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen stated the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-0 on March 11, 1991, to recommend approval of a fifth view corridor. The view corridor would extend from Frivolous Sals looking east to the Gore Range over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs. Discussion of adopting this corridor was reinitiated recently when the Red Lion redevelopment was reviewed. Since that time, staff has been working with the property owners in the area to define this corridor. Discussion followed among Town Council members, Jay Peterson, and Paul Johnston, regarding the roof line for the Christiania. Photographs were produced showing the corridor as it exists today and as it will be after the Christiania expansion is built. Andy also stated the staff had reorganized the language regulating view corridors and had created a new chapter in the zoning code for this regulation. Lynn Fritzlen made remarks about the legal description on page 5, 18.73.030 Limitations on Construction., and it was suggested that "decks" be included as one of the structures. Jim Gibson requested Kristan Pritz look at protecting important views with a view analysis on the Village and Lionshead. Merv Lapin moved approval of Ordinance No. 13, with the following clarifications and changes: 1) addresses of properties referred to by building name be included; 2) changes in the physical description of the corridor be made including the line along the Plaza Lodge and the line representing the proposed Christiania building; 3) Page 4 Section C reading "Northwest corner of 244 Wall Street" be changed to Northeast corner; 4) Section 18.73.070, Page 7 Exemptions, paragraph one be reworded; 5) a statement regarding natural light be added to the purpose section; 6) language describing the effective date of the view corridor be deleted and that the legal description be revised to allign with the proposed Christiania expansing. Jim Gibson seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Margaret Stevens c:\min57 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 21, 1991 7:30 P:M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen , Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda was the introduction of Stan McKenzie, new manager of Heritage Cablevision. Mr. McKenzie thanked the Council for allowing him to speak to them, expressing his willingness to work with both the public and the media to improve working relationships. He explained the philosophy of Heritage regarding their methods of doing business. Tom Steinberg asked why the addition of expanded service was being handled the way it was, adding the service to customer's subscription and then putting the responsibility on the consumer to request a disconnect if the service was not wanted. Stan said the reason for this technique was to keep costs low, anticipating that most subscribers would want to keep the expanded service, thus making fewer disconnect calls. He stated there was no official time limit on canceling the service and any service charges would be backed out of the customer's fee, if requested. Kent Rose stated he felt this was a deceptive way of doing business and would prefer Heritage take the opposite approach in selling this service. Mr. McKenzie stated he respected that opinion; however, he had investigated the legality of this position and was ,not breaking any law by doing it this way. Peg Osterfoss stated that she agreed with Tom Steinberg' s and Kent Rose's feelings . Tom Steinberg also stated he felt Heritage was skirting the issue again, as was done in the past in regard to franchise fees, and this would probably result in problems for~Heritage in the future. There was further discussion regarding Heritage services. Mr. McKenzie thanked the Council for their time and encouraged the Council to contact him if they had any further questions or comments. The next item on the agenda was a request to approve Resolution No. 13, Series of 1991, amending the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, rezoning property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works Shops from Agriculture and Open Space to Public Use District . Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Andy Knudtsen, of the Community Development Department, presented the request to the Council, recapping the staff memo attached thereto. He stated the Planning and Environmental Commission had approved the request 4-0 at its May 13, 1991, meeting. After the presentation, Rob Levine made a motion to approve Resolution No. 13, Series of 1991, and Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Kristan Pritz requested that "Mid- Section Map" be included in the Resolution title. Ron Phillips stated that he was in final negotiations with Vail Associates in working out the final details for the lease and would have them resolved by the second reading of the Ordinance. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed unanimously. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve Ordinance #14, Series of 1991, on first reading, and Rob Levine seconded the motion. Kent Rose asked the staff if for any reason the lease with Vail Associates was canceled, the land could automatically be changed back to open space. Ron Phillips stated that the Town has the authority to initiate rezoning at any time, but that a provision to make the change automatic could not be added. Andy stated that the Planning Commission had expressed the same concerns and that the uses listed in each zone district were similar. After some discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business, Jim Gibson made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Rob Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 P.M. Respectfully submitted,. . Kent R. Rose, Mayor i ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster -2- ORDINANCE NO. 14 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FROM AGRICULTURE/OPEN SPACE, SECTION 18.32, TO PUBLIC USE DISTRICT, SECTION 18.36. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Town of Vail and Vail Associates to rezone a parcel generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space Zone District to Public Use District Zone District; and WHEREAS, the allowed and conditional uses of the proposed zone district are such that they will be compatible with adjacent zone districts; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with municipal objectives to provide an orderly, viable community by allowing "public service facilities" as conditional uses in the proposed zone district; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Policy 6.1 of the Land Use Plan, and is consistent with the revised Land Use designations shown on the Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices, as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds the procedures for a zoning amendment, as set forth in Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to the zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones the property, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, from Agriculture/Open Space Zone District to Public Use Zone District. 1 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 validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal 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. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ' READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor - ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 2 and Re~aning ~ d h Change ~ .1 f pose and Use ,t ~~~f Axea o Pro '"N'~st r,:I:: •i:~ 1•t ' ...r•• sawn FRTE RIVER NgT1pNAL FOREST ` ' "a:.;~ : ~ iR I'(.. . ~ ~ . aa~~oaRY m ~ .,t a~ ~ _ . uu ~ ~ • w_ .r ~ L. .w r m _ • » . Yll~ 7titF1lA .f r ~ ~ • , ~ ~.1..J ERHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE AND REZONING THAT PART OF THE NORTH } OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY N0. 70 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • BEGINNING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 529.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. NO. 70 FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 1) SOUTH 75 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 2) 1327.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 572.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PLATS FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY. THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH'89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS SHOWN ON SAID ANNEXATION PLATS. (NORTH ANHOLTZ) • ~ • • _ ~ • ~.._a~•'. '}f ~ J Gl.~uv11 L MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to Semi-Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows: That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two courses: 1) S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly tine of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of Vail/Nail Associates r:.~ I. INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town Public Works Department shops. The parcel is approximately 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and is directly west of the Town of Vail Shops. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural and 1 Open Space District, and the applicant is proposing Public Use District zoning. The owner of the property is Vail Associates (VA), and the Town of Vail will be the leaseholder. The , purpose of the request to rezone the property is to allow "public service facilities" as conditional uses. If the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vail will apply for a conditional use permit fora "public service facility," or more specifically, a Town snow dump. Development standards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for individual proposals. In Section 18.36.050 of the Public Use District, the PEC is given the authority to: "prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping and Site Development." Note: C&F have been deleted since the original adoption. Because the PEC has the authority to set development standards for each specific use, staff believes that each should be analyzed closely at the time of the conditional use hearing. II. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The tract of land under consideration is zoned Agricultural and Open Space District, and is located between land zoned Public Use District to the east and Agriculture and Open Space District to the west. Because the parcel under consideration is adjacent to existing Public Use District zoning, staff believes it is reasonable to expand this zone district. In addition, staff believes the two zones are compatible with each other. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? Staff believes the relationship of land uses in the area is workable, as both the Agricultural and Open Space District and the Public Use District allow only low intensity uses. Both zone districts have a very limited number of permitted uses, which are listed below, and both allow larger, more intense uses only through conditional use review. Because of the manner in which the zoning code is written for regulating the Public Use District, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be able to set the development standards for any conditional use, such as a snow dump, to ensure that it is compatible with adjacent uses. Staff believes that the rezoning will help achieve a municipal objective of providing snow removal. The area the Town currently uses to dump snow is the north bank of Gore Creek in Ford Park, just east of the tennis courts. Town Council has requested that the Public Works Department find a new location to dump snow, as the current use of the Gore Creek bank is not environmentally sensitive to Gore Creek or Ford Park. 2 During a previous PEC worksession on this issue, the PEC's primary concern centered on potential land uses which the rezoning would allow. "By-Right" uses of both districts are listed below: Public Use District (Proposed Zoning) A. Public parks, playgrounds, and open space B. Pedestrian and bicycle paths C. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities Aariculture and Ogen Soace (Existing Zoning) A. Single family residential dwellings B. Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops C. Public parks, recreation areas and open spaces During the worksession, the one use the PEC was concerned about was letter C-- seasonal structures or uses. Research done since the worksession shows that the definition of seasonal structure requires conditional use approval in every zone district. Though this conflicts with the use being listed as a permitted use in the Public Use District; whenever the zoning code applies more than one standard to a development regulation, staff practice has been to consistently use the more restrictive standard. The definition of a seasonal structure is a: "temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven consecutive months of any twelve-month period.... Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60" Because of this definition, the only by right uses allowed in the Public Use zone district are parks and bicycle paths. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community? If approved, the rezoning will provide the conditional use process for the Town of Vail to request approval of a snow dump. Staff believes that providing a snow dump for the community will improve snow removal services, reduce environmental impacts, make the community more enjoyable for guests and residents during the winter, and help the Town function more efficiently. The conditional use criteria will allow for a thorough review of the request to insure community concerns are addressed. Apart of any conditional use review will be an analysis of the rockfall hazard. This is the only hazard affecting the site, and any proposed use will have to incorporate any mitigation recommended in a hazard study. 3 D. Land Use Plan This parcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan. Criteria for amending the Land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the Plan, it states that in order: "to change the Plan it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan was in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general." The goals and policies of any Land Use Plan are the fundamental basis on which such a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states that, "Services should keep pace with increased growth." Staff believes snow removal is a service which the Town provides and is included under this policy. In another section of the Plan, which discusses the facility and service standards of the Town, it states that the Public Works' Town Shops "is of adequate size to accommodate future space needs." Staff believes that conditions have changed since that statement was put in the Plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities would be an appropriate action. In addition to the change in land use designation from Open Space to Semi-Public Use, staff also suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect that there is a need for expansion of the services the Town Shop site provides. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Staff finds that the suitability of the existing zoning is not adequate to accommodate the interests of the public, and that the proposed rezoning would provide a convenient, workable relationship with the land uses on either side of the parcel, and that the rezoning would be consistent with municipal objectives. In addition, staff believes that the rezoning, which would allow public service facilities, via the conditional use process, would provide for a more orderly and viable community. Lastly, staff believes that the Land Use Plan policies and amendment criteria are such that a rezoning to Public Use District is consistent with the plan in general. Regarding the Land Use Plan, staff recommends that the two changes discussed be approved. First, the Land Use designation shown on the maps should be changed from Open Space to Public Use. Secondly, the text referring to the Public Works Shop site should be modified to read "the Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate future space needs and to allow for additional services to be located at the Shops." Staff believes that these changes are consistent with the criteria established to modify the Plan as well as Policy 6.1 of the goals and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend to Town Council that the Land Use Plan be changed and that the parcel generally west of the Town Shops be rezoned to Public Use District. c:\pec\tov\s nowdum p.513 4 ~ . S~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to Semi-Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows: That part of the North 1 /2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two courses: 1) S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature; 2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8; Thence departing said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or less. The above description is based on the Town of Vail. annexation plats for the property described and is not based on a field survey: The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plats. Applicant: Town of VailNail Associates n., .kn..:..,~.. ..n..:.: p...... ,.::.:::.~:.:..../~:.:::.Y;i~::i.Y::.Y:.;:.iY;;YY:::. 4.Y;t. ~p' . •::::::n.::n:.::::: ~ n•:::::. -~t:~:L:;'•:tii:•i:::: ~ :.c::~::~i:::. .:~:r?~:•~:•~:<:~;:::.;::::.:::::::.:.:.i:~::~:>:~::~i:~;:: iYY:~i:~>:.Y:~i:~iiY:.::.i:~; ~ f.. ............1 Y:<•Y YrY: iiii:•' ~ \ . \...v.....x: w. !~Yi:~i:<......... ? n......... r4 xw; isw:....::::::::::::::.............. e.::....fF.~%....... v ~Yn4J.4• v ~A~.,. ~:v:::; . YY:•:w:.v............ v::: /.v,.......': rv... w:::::.. 4: ::w:nn~a:v :::::.~:::..::::::..;;t.YY>:•a~\\~.::..... .:{1,.iTiYti.f Y='•..v •!.:?i:: i::. ...............::.::..:::::::::.~:n:J::~{n•.w::::nw:::\w:: u: nv:nv..v. )h.:::r3::nY.,. ~y( A\'Y:•'r:iiii•YYi:vY:'Ya .,'.JYiiWiii:~:::/: ~/ll iii: YiiiiY:iiv.'1\.Jn.. non w::•~:::::::.••.•.... .n..l.. ••.•..ti4n'~N ...............:N>:(.................:1AMriiXC I. ~ INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town Public Works Department shops. The parcel is approximately 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and is directly west of the Town of Vail Shops. The current zoning of the property is Agricultural and 1 Open Space District, and the applicant is proposing Public Use District zoning. The owner of the property is Vail Associates (VA), and the Town of Vail will be the leaseholder. The purpose of the request to rezone the property is to allow "public service facilities" as conditional uses. If the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vail will apply for a conditional use permit fora "public service facility," or more specifically, a Town snow dump. Development standards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for individual proposals. In Section 18.36.050 of the Public Use District, the PEC is given the authority to: "prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping and Site Development." Note: C&F have been deleted since the original adoption. Because the PEC has the authority to set development standards for each specific use, staff believes that each should be analyzed closely at the time of the conditional use hearing. II. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST A. Suitablllty of Exlsting Zoning The tract of land under consideration is zoned Agricultural and Open Space District, and is located between land zoned Public Use District to the east and Agriculture and Open Space District to the west. Because the parcel under consideration is adjacent to existing Public Use District zoning, staff believes it is reasonable to expand this zone district. In addition, staff believes the two zones are compatible with each other. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable Relatlonshlp w(th Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? Staff believes the relationship of land uses in the area is workable, as both the Agricultural and Open Space District and the Public Use District allow only low intensity uses. Both zone districts have a very limited number of permitted uses, which are listed below, and both allow larger, more intense uses only through conditional use review. Because of the manner in which the zoning code is written for regulating the Public Use District, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be able to set the development standards for any conditional use, such as a snow dump, to ensure that it is compatible with adjacent uses. Staff believes that the rezoning will help achieve a municipal objective of providing . snow removal. The area the Town currently uses to dump snow is the north bank of , Gore Creek in Ford Park, just east of the tennis courts. Town Council has requested that the Public Works Department find a new location to dump snow, as the current use of the Gore Creek bank is not environmentally sensitive to Gore Creek or Ford Park. ~ , - , iry~i:.. I 2 ~ . ..axsr.mnwarcra..,ma-~...., r ~ . f During a previous PEC worksession on this issue, the PEC's primary concern centered on potential land uses which the rezoning would allow. "By-Right" uses of both districts are listed below: Public Use District (Proposed Zoning) A. Public parks, playgrounds, and open space B. Pedestrian and bicycle paths C. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities Agriculture and Ooen Soace (Existing Zoning) A. Single family residential dwellings B. Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops C. Public parks, recreation areas and open spaces During the worksession, the one use the PEC was concerned about was letter C-- seasonal structures or uses. Research done since the worksession shows that the definition of seasonal structure requires conditional use approval in every zone district. Though this conflicts with the use being listed as a permitted use in the Public Use District, whenever the zoning code applies more than one standard to a development regulation, staff practice has been to consistently use the more restrictive standard. The definition of a seasonal structure is a: "temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven consecutive months of any twelve-month period.... Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60" Because of this definition, the only by right uses allowed in the Public Use zone district are parks and bicycle paths. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community? If approved, the rezoning will provide the conditional use process for the Town of Vail to request approval of a snow dump. Staff believes that providing a snow dump for the community will improve snow removal services, reduce environmental impacts, make . the community more enjoyable for guests and residents during the winter, and help the Town function more efficiently. The conditional use criteria will allow for a thorough . ; review of the request to insure community concerns are addressed. Apart of any conditional use review will be an analysis of the rockfall hazard. This is the only hazard affecting the site, and any proposed use will have to incorporate any mitigation recommended in a hazard study. ; ; 3 D. Land Use Plan This parcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan. Criteria for amending the Land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the Plan, it states that in order: "to change the Plan it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate how conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan was in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general." The goals and policies of any Land Use Plan are the fundamental basis on which such a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states that, "Services should keep pace with increased growth." Staff believes snow removal is a service which the Town provides and is included under this policy. In another section of the Plan, which discusses the facility and service standards of the Town, it states that the Public Works' Town Shops "is of adequate size to accommodate future space needs." Staff believes that conditions have changed since that statement was put in the Plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities would be an appropriate action. In addition to the change in land use designation from Open Space to Semi-Public Use, staff also suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect that there is a need for expansion of the services the Town Shop site provides. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Staff finds that the suitability of the existing zoning is not adequate to accommodate the interests of the public, and that the proposed rezoning would provide a convenient, workable relationship with the land uses on either side of the parcel, and that the rezoning would be consistent with municipal objectives. In addition, staff believes that the rezoning, which would allow public service facilities, via the conditional use process, would provide for a more orderly and viable community. Lastly, staff believes that the Land Use Plan policies and amendment criteria are such that a rezoning to Public Use District is consistent with the plan in general. Regarding the Land Use Plan, staff recommends that the two changes discussed be approved. First, the Land Use designation shown on the maps should be changed from Open Space to Public Use. Secondly, the text referring to the Public Works Shop site should be modified to read "the Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate future space needs and to allow for additional services to be located at the Shops." Staff believes that these changes are consistent with the criteria established to modify the Plan as well as Policy 6.1 of the goals and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning " and Environmental Commission recommend to Town Council that the Land Use Plan be changed and that the parcel generally west of the Town Shops be rezoned to Public Use District. c:\pec\tov~Snowdump.513 4 . ` RESOLUTION NO. 13 Series of 1991 A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FROM OPEN SPACE TO SEMI-PUBLIC, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, conditions in the Town of Vail have changed since the Land Use Plan was originally adopted; and WHEREAS, Policy 6.1 of the Land Use Plan states that services should keep pace with increased growth; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has a need for additional land with the designation of semi- public in order to meet the standards of Policy 6.1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: 1. The Town Council finds the procedures for amending the Land Use Plan, as set forth in Chapter VIII, Section 3 of the Land Use Plan have been satisfied. 2. The Town Council hereby amends the Land Use Plan: A. Changing the Land Use Designation shown on Figure 3-M of the Plan from Open Space to Semi-Public for the property more particularly described in Exhibit A, and B. Changing text of Chapter V11, Section 2, "Public Works" to read: "The Public Works/Transportation Department is housed at the Town of Vail shop property which is located north of I-70 in the vicinity of the golf course. The Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate future space needs to allow for addltlonal services to be located at the shops. Also, in the previous space use study, it was recommended that a small satellite facility to accommodate under storage and a snowplow be developed in West Vail." INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991. - Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: ~ .Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk . . ~ 1 'Y ' EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE AND REZONING THAT PART OF THE NORTH } OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 529.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 1) SOUTH 75 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 2) 1327.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 132.4.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 572.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES MORE OR LESS. THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PLATS FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY. THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS SHOWN ON SAID ANNEXATION PLATS. (NORTH ANHOLTZ) ro osed Land Use Change and Rezoning, ~ Area of p P i ~11i'. • A~ ~ ~Ct, ' ;r ~i~-~l;~? rarw H ~ °01"'t" E RIVER W1110NA1• FOREST y mwa C)F CAI aalr~ • ® . _:y - _ _ ` ~ _ 1 ~ w~.. _ - MLy{lA~ CMS fLNO m ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ U~ ~ / " . ~ FORD P4RK . ~ ..n ' ~ ' ...y ! 1~ n; ~ r- ~ ~ ....M....r.. . n • ~ • w~ v?i~t ~r. Fua ,rn, v~txx ~w FLNti _ - . w • , ~ • wer w was • ORDINANCE NO. 14 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FROM AGRICULTURE/OPEN SPACE, SECTION 18.32, TO PUBLIC USE DISTRICT, SECTION 18.36. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Town of Vail and Vail Associates to rezone a parcel generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space Zone District to Public Use District Zone District; and WHEREAS, the allowed and conditional uses of the proposed zone district are such that they will be compatible with adjacent zone districts; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with municipal objectives to provide an orderly, viable community by allowing "public service facilities" as conditional uses in the proposed zone district; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Policy 6.1 of the Land Use Plan, and is consistent with the revised Land Use designations shown on the Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices, as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds the procedures for a zoning amendment, as set forth in Section ~ . 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to the zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones the property, more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, from Agriculture/Open Space Zone District to Public Use Zone District. 1 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 validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of- Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal 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. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ~r . . . 2 ~j. ' EXHIBIT A • DESCRIPTION OF AREA I~GAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE AND REZONING THAT PART OF rte NORTH } OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT i.u; NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, ,SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 529.86 FEET TO A POINT ON ins NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70; THENCE ALONG THE • NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 FOLLOWING • TWO COURSES: 1) SOUTH 75 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 2) 1327.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST ALONG itira EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 572.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF • BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES MORE OR LESS. i ~ THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PLATS FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND ZS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY. THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL IS i,~~. NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS SHOWN ON SAID ANNEXATION PLATS. (NORTH ANHOLTZ) i ~ . . ~ ORDINANCE N0. 15 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.04.130, THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL (GRFA), AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Gross Residential Floor area is an important tool for controlling the level of development in the Town; and WHEREAS, modifications to the Gross Residential Floor Area system are necessary to ensure its effectiveness; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.04.130 Floor area, Gross residential (GRFA) Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraphs A or B below. A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with 1 - truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25o of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1) Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements. 2) All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed thirty-five percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks b. Common lobby areas c. Common enclosed recreation facilities - d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required to allow for the maintenance and operation of such mechanical systems. e. Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. 2 f. Meeting and convention facilities g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on-site facilities. Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five percent maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA. 3) All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty- five square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. 4) Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall only be counted at~ the lowest level. 5) Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 6) Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 7) Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 250 of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space provide the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph B shall then be deducted from the total square footage. Section 2 The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any application for development which has been submitted to the Department of Community Development, and accepted by the same, on 3 ~ / or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant submitting the application before July 1, 1991. Section 3 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions 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 or 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 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of ~ ~ , 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. 4 Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk c:\ord\ord15.91 5 - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to GRFA regulations for multi-family and lodge development Applicant: Town of Vail .k.N .,~.,...,,,m... r.~.:.::::.,, f`~.... Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and duplex residential development only, although the new GRFA definition applies to higher density residential development. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations is to address multi-family and commercial development. This memo outlines the issues and recommendations for amending GRFA. The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments. I. GOAL OF THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS Amendments approved in December resolved many long-standing problems with the definition of GRFA. However, these amendments addressed single family and duplex development in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside Residential zone districts only. The focus of this amendment process is GRFA in multi-family developments. Any building containing more than two units is considered a multi-family development, including housing types such as lodges, condominiums and townhomes. There are two fundamental issues that must be resolved by this amendment process: 1. The new definition of GRFA changes the way residential square footage is measured. This "loss of square footage" was compensated by increasing allowable GRFA in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside districts. To date, no changes have been made to multi-family zone districts. As a result, the new GRFA definition penalizes the higher density zone district because there has been no compensation for the change in how GRFA is calculated. 2. Five credits or allowances are made for different types of space in multi-family development. These credits typically refer to "common areas" and are generally poorly defined. Each of these credits should be evaluated and amended as required. 1 The goal of this effort is not unlike our initial GRFA amendment process: To clean up any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the existing GRFA system. In doing so, the primary objective should be to treat property as equitably as possible. Changes to the system should not "take away" any sianificant development potential (square footage) that a property currently has. A secondary objective is to utilize one definition for GRFA and deal with any differences between single family/duplex and multi-family development with credits and allowances. II. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES There are many way to address these issues. The initial approach studied by the Task Force was to amend multi-family GRFA to be consistent with amendments to single family and duplex development -delete atl or as many credits as possible. However, to do so creates many problems, particularly when trying to treat properties equitably. It was fairly easy to determine how much GRFA to add back to single family and duplex lots after storage credits, overlapping stairways, etc. were eliminated or changed. However, to conduct the same process for multi-family development is far more complicated (if not impossible), because of the different characteristics of lodges, condos and townhomes. For this reason, it is recommended that credits for multi-family development be retained. While this approach is different than what was done for single family and duplex development, one should not abandon logic for the sake of consistency -equitable treatment is more important. The greatest drawback for maintaining a credit system is that it has the potential to create difficulties for applicants and the staff. However, from the viewpoint of the staff, problems over the past five years have been exclusively with single family and duplex development. This is in large part due to the fact that there is not a great deal ofmulti-family development. In fact, multi- family dwelling units (condos and townhomes) are 88% built out and lodge units are 85% built out. In summary, the staff feels confident in its ability to deal with a "simplified" credit system. The direction of the staff and Task Force recommendation is to essentially maintain existing GRFA credits for multi-family development, but consolidate as many credits and allowances as possible into the "common area" credit. This approach represents a significant step toward establishing a clearly defined cap on the total amount of floor area that can be developed on a site. With two exceptions, (garages and airlocks) maximum floor area on a site would be determined by GRFA plus allowable common area. III. EVALUATING THE COMMON AREA CREDIT , The key question to resolve in evaluating this amendment is to determine an appropriate percentage for the common area credit. Changes to this percentage will have to consider not only the spaces calculated in the existing common area credit, but also the new areas to be incorporated into the common area credit. 2 Currently. common area is calculated by taking 20% of allowable GRFA and allocating that - square footage to common areas. The following uses, or spaces are included in the existing definition of common area: 20% Common Area Credit Common hallways Common closets Lobby areas Stairways Common recreation facilities There are no conditions on how this square footage may be utilized. The use and design of a project ultimately dictates how much common area is used and how it is allocated. With the proposed amendment, the following uses or spaces will be added to the common area credits listed above. These uses or spaces are presently "credited" through some other means - i.e., mechanical space is an existing credit and overlapping stairways were credited by the definition of GRFA. The allowable percentage of common area will have to be revised in order to account for the square footage needed for these uses. 1) Common stairways and elevator shafts Stairways are listed as a common area credit in the existing GRFA system. However, this was considered a mute point because overlapping stairs were discounted in the old definition of GRFA. The new definition of GRFA counts each level of a stairway, so some compensation in common area square footage is necessary. 3) Common meeting facilities Meeting rooms are presently not listed as a common area credit, they will now be accounted for by the common area credit. 4) Common mechanical areas At the present time, "mechanical space" is an unquantified credit independent of the common area credit. It will be added to the common area allowance. 5) Management/support space This type of space is not specifically addressed in the GRFA system. It will include "back of the house" space for management and operational services necessary for a lodge or a condominium that is operated as a lodge. The objective of modifying the common area credit is to ensure that the common area percentage provides ample flexibility for the development of common spaces. IV. DIFFERENT TYPES OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ` In all likelihood, most multi-family development will not come close to using all of the allowable common area credit. However, for lodges and properties managed for short-term rental, common area is critical because it permits the development of important guest services. 3 _ The greatest difficulty in estimating the square footage necessary to accommodate the uses listed above is that the design, use and operation of multi-family development varies dramatically. As a result, the need for square footage to accommodate these uses also varies. Another factor complicating this effort is that 85-88% of multi-family development is built-out, and many of these properties exceed development permitted by existing zoning. These non- conforming developments raise the question of whether the common area percentage should be determined based on the level of development that has been constructed, or the level of development permitted by exist zoning regulations. This analysis assumes that allowable common area should be based on allowable development as per existing zoning. Consider the following types of multi-family development: 1) Golf Course T.H. Timber Falls Vail Racquet Club All Seasons Vail Row Homes 770 Potato Patch Coldstream Condominiums While the operation of these properties vary, they share similar design characteristics. Virtually all units have individual access, meaning no common hallways or stairways. By and large, there are no lobbies, meeting rooms, and very little enclosed recreation space (with the exception of the Racquet Club). Common area utilized by these properties is limited to mechanical, storage and garages. As a result, these type of properties have used a small fraction of allowable common area. 2) Villa Cortina Edelweiss Lodge Tower Riva Ridge North and South Fall Line Villa Valhalla These condominiums are either operated as hotels or are actively short-termed. They all have interior hallways and stairs, but have little in the way of meeting rooms, lobbies or indoor recreation facilities. A number of these properties also exceed allowable GRFA and, as a result, exceed allowable common area. 3) Tivoli Vail Run , Sitzmark , Days Inn , Holiday Inn Sonnenalp 4 - These developments are traditional lodges or hotels, or are operated as hotels. Most of these properties utilize each of the different types of common area listed above. Of the three types of multi-family development, these properties are the most intense users of common space. As such, this type of development represents our "target group", the revised common area percentage should be designed to accommodate this type of development. V. ESTIMATES FOR INCREASING ALLOWABLE COMMON AREA The following is an assessment of the existing 20% common area allowance and an estimation of how this percentage would have to be amended to accommodate the five "new common areas" listed above. These estimates are based on prototypical developments that include a number of assumptions regarding the use of common space. Keep in mind that this is not a science! Every property wilt be different in design and operation -and have different needs for common area. This analysis is an attempt to quantify these uses in a very general sense. The question of whether 20% is adequate for common area has been raised in the past. The accompanying spread sheet was developed with data gathered during the Vail Village Master Plan. During the development of this plan, square footage calculations were done for all properties in the study area. It is unknown exactly how common area was measured, so there is some question of this data's validity. Nonetheless, it provides a relative indication of how 12 properties compare to the existing common area allowance. The data indicates a direct relationship between properties that exceed allowable common area and properties that exceed allowable GRFA -they tend to be the same. However, for property developed within allowable GRFA, 20% common area may be inadequate if full guest services are provided. The following statistical analysis, for an example of a typical lodge, supports this contention. LODGE "X" DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRICT .5 ACRE SITE - 21,780 SQ. FT. UNITS - 25 a.u.'s GRFA - 17,424 20% COMMON AREA - 3,484 This prototypical hotel consists of a lobby level, two full levels of lodge rooms a partial third level of lodge rooms - a total of four levels. The building has a footprint of approximately 80' X 60' (4,800 square feet). Lodge rooms are 400 square feet (16' X 25). The following uses would have to be accommodated in the 20% common area allowance: Hallways 4 levels at 5' wide times 100' long. total: 2.000 square feet , Storage/closets/common laundry Maid closets, storage for linen, quest ski storage, winter storage for lawn chairs, etc. total: 500 square feet 5 _ Lobby areas Includes common airlock entry, front desk, sitting area, etc. total: 500 square feet Recreation facility While facilities vary widely, examples of recreation facilities may include hot tub, sauna, rec room, etc. total: 600 sciuare feet These estimates total 3,600 square feet, 116 square feet more than the allowable common area for this site (3,484). While the use of these spaces will vary widely between developments, it appears that the 20% allowance is too restrictive with respect to common area if all types of common area are actually provided. The following is an estimation of space required for the four new areas to be added to the common area credit. Stairways 50 square feet per level for an elevator and 240 square feet per level (8' x 15' = 90 sq. ft. x 2) for the two required emergency stairways. total: 1,160 square feet Meeting Rooms Based on Uniform Building Code occupancy levels, a 570 square foot meeting room could accommodate 38 people (25 units X 1.5 people per unit). The calculation takes average number of people per allowable unit and allows adequate square footage for that type of meeting space to meet the people demand. total: 570 square feet Mechanical Mechanical rooms vary dramatically depending upon the type of system that is used. The Vail Building Department indicated that 500 square feet is a reasonable figure that would accommodate most mechanical systems in a lodge this size. total: 500 square feet Office/management A lodge of this size would not require a great deal of space for management and operation. Assume office space for a manager, bookkeeper and reservations. total: 200 souare feet Maintenance equipment for building This space could be used for lawn mowers, tools, etc. total: 100 souare feet - What does this information tell us? For this prototypical development, 2,530 square feet of building would be calculated as common area. This is not 2,530 square feet of new square footage. It is square footage that was previously not calculated at all, or discounted because it was listed as some other type of credit. On this size lot, the common area would have to be 6 increased from 20% to 35.2% to account for the floor area listed above (2,530 sq. ft.) and the floor area on page 5 (3,600 sq. ft.). At 35.2% the total common area credit on this site would be 6,130 square feet. Will this same percentage increase provide a reasonable amount of common area work fora 1 acre property? At 35%, a 1 acre P.A. site would allow 12,197 square feet of common area - exactly twice the amount permitted on the .5 acre site. The question is whether the need for common area doubles if density doubles. In most cases, the need for common area will increase, but it probably will not double. An argument could be made for doubling square footage for hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office support. However, lobby areas, rec facilities and mechanical spaces will probably not require twice the space to serve twice the people. There would also be an increase in square footage for stairways. A common area credit of between 30-35% seems reasonable for the "typical development". However, there are some slight discrepancies with applying one number to all lot sizes. 30% could potentially burden a .5 acre site by not permitting enough common area. 35% on a 1 acre site would probably permit more common area than is required. In this case, however, it is probably better to "error on the high side" for the following reasons: 1) If a development does not need the common area, it is not used - it cannot be developed as GRFA. There have been no documented cases of multi-family development "abusing" the common area provision. 2) The 20% common area allowance has historically allowed a disproportionate amount of floor area to larger lots. There are no reasons to change this arrangement. 3) Site development standards wilt regulate building bulk and mass that may result from common area allowances. It is emphasized that the methodology used to reach this conclusion is based on many assumptions. Making different assumptions will result in different numbers -which will ultimately suggest a different percentage. This analysis is essentially a judgement of whether the percentage will allow for a reasonable amount of square footage for common areas. VI. PROPOSED DEFINITION OF GRFA FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT The following are the proposed revisions to the definition of GRFA. The actual definition is identical to what was approved in December. Changes to multi-family buildings begin with the credits in paragraph B. 18.04.130 Floor Area, aross residential (GRFAI Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, covered porches, 7 covered terraces or covered patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraphs A and B below. A. paragraph A includes credits or allowances for buildings containing two or fewer units. These would not change with this amendment. B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1) Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements. 2) All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed thirtv-five percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. a. common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks b. lobby areas c. common enclosed recreation facilities d. meeting and convention facilities e. common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. f. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required to allow for the maintenance and operation of such systems. g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on-site facilities. Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five percent maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA. 3) All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. 4) Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 5) Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. , 6) Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space , with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature/space provide the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. 8 ' GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraphs A and B shall then be excluded from the total square footage. VI1. IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT The following is a summary of changes that would result ftom this amendment. 1) The amount of square footage that can be exempted for a parking garage will not be quantified, but is clarified to ensure that only space necessary to accommodate the garage is exempt. 2) Common overlapping stairways have been incorporated into the common area credit. Because of the change in the definition of GRFA, overlapping stairways in individual units will no longer be exempt from calculation as GRFA. If single family units are not built on these vacant sites, approximately 26 properties could be impacted by not compensating for internal stairways. In addition, existing development may become non-conforming. Please see the attached chart, dated October 24, 1990. If two or three level multi-family units are built on these properties, square footage is being taken away under this amendment. However, the impact is tempered because many multi-family units are only one level and - staff is building GRFA compensation for RC, LDMF and MDMF single units (please see attached memo). To add square footage per unit in multi-family zone districts could add significant GRFA to multi-family properties when many of these properties do not have multi-level units. Staff recognizes this inequity. The Task Force discussed the possibility of not counting internal stairs within individual units. However, it was determined that the system became overly complicated with this approach. 3) Meeting rooms have been added to the list of common area credits. 4) Closets and storage areas have been qualified to require access from common hallways only. 5) The mechanical area credit has been incorporated into the common area credit. It has also been qualified to ensure that any area exempt from calculation as GRFA is legitimate mechanical space. 6) Office space for management of "on-site facilities" has been added to the list of common area credits. 7) The airlock credit for individual units has been maintained. 8) With each type of credit, provisions are established for how the common space can be used -this is done to ensure that common area is developed for the purpose for which it is intended. If a development does not utilize all credits available, the square footage cannot be developed as GRFA -the square footage simply is not used. 9 IX. RECOMMENDATION The staff and Task Force recommends that the common area credit for multi-family buildings be amended as proposed in this memorandum. Obviously, the key question in this amendment process is the allowable percentage of common area. A change to the existing percentage is proposed not because of a desire to permit the development of more square footage, rather, to clarify the way common space is account for in multi-family buildings. The increase to 35% is essentially based on a cursory analysis. One may argue that this analysis does not provide an adequate basis for making this recommendation. However, more analysis would simply be an attempt to find astandard -when there really is no standard. All multi-family development is different, and the requirements for common area are different. We believe the amendment provides a general compensation for common area, given the variety of development within the zone district. c:\pec\tov\g rfa2.513 ORDINANCE N0. 16 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.14.090, DENSITY CONTROL-RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT; SECTION 18.16.090, DENSITY CONTROL-LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.18.090, DENSITY CONTROL-MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Gross Residential Floor area is an important tool for controlling the level of development in the Town; and WHEREAS, modifications to the Gross Residential Floor Area in certain zone districts are necessary to ensure its effectiveness; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 18.14.090, Density Control in the Residential Cluster District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.14.090 Density Control A. Not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area, provided however, that single family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the Residential Cluster District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty-five square feet of GRFA per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed six dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. (Ord. 19 (1979) Section 5 (part) : Ord. 50 (1978) Section 18 (part) . ) 1 ' Section 2 Section 18.16.090 Density Control in the Low Density Multi-family District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 18.16.090 Density Control A. Not more than thirty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area, provided however, that single family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the Low Density Residential District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty five square feet of GRFA per constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed nine dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978 shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. (Ord. 19 (1979) Section 5 (part) Ord. 50 (1978) Section 18 (part).) Section 3 Sub-section 18.18.090 Density control in the Medium Density Multi-family District is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.18.090 Density Control A. Not more than thirty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area, provided however, that single family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the Medium Density Residential District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty-five square feet of GRFA per constructed dwelling unit. B. Exemptions. All projects that have received final - design review board approval as of December 19, 1978 shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. (Ord. 19 (1979) Section 5 (part) : Ord. 50 (1978) Section 18 (part) . ) 2 " Section 4 The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any application for development which has been submitted to the Community Development Department, and accepted by the same, on or before July 1, 1991-; unless agreed to by the applicant submitting the application before July 1, 1991. Section 5 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, .clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 7 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions 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 or 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 8 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. 3 Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk c:\ord\ord16.91 4 - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 199 f SUBJECT: • Amendments to GRFA for single family and duplex development in the RC, LDMF and MDMF zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail w v:::: :..K::Y••rw:r:rvyn'!vY.<w;!!ivn:!!T!~p;r:l.'^:'!r . .:i: J;::: }}Y:: ~ v x::::::.vv:::: ii:_:.}}}•:::}::::i.ii}:v}'.~}:: U:•}i:ii~•'.}~. p; •iv . d. ry'::::: v.:: ? .vv rv r /.J:K f: nY}:f: v::v'~:::}i}}: ::.i:}i:•i$•.}f:~ ~~l::H ...F.Of. ~..ti n:.. w:; }:•Y{::: F ' {:n::::: :}:S.S}i}~:.: `}}::•}}iii}:fiiii::•:•'•;i.?}: v:: iii: ~:•i::•::•}iiii:::i}j:v:i: iii:i:i'r::i::iiii:vi:J ii:; :};;ii::i: ~:::v4i}ii}}; }}$}:viiii ii::}iii'+:!vi;i:}}}}}ii}ji:vi:vviii•'i.{•i?j'r">isi^i::y}}:±•}fv:v4i:?i•i}}:....:.::::vt::vii:.!.:..... : v:. : ::.t.......lf v:: n : r kY.S..; ....:::::..::v::::::::::::: .:........r.•:::r.........::5{i•}}•}n::'n;;.:.~:.-'r ::....:........f..}:•#}:}f.•r.•nfi}:S:CJ}:y,...n.~..~.•r}vy: Lifi:SS:i4i(:.:?.. f+4i}:iiiv:~i:4::i::.:'iiii:<i`:: }:•i}v:. v.x x• ..w:v;{•}:Sw:L}:iv.wn+nnAK»w vw~`Lw"' „w{W.r„ ' viliv-v I. PROBLEM STATEMENT An underlying goal of amendments to the definition of GRFA has been to treat all properties equitably. For example, GRFA was added to the density control section of certain zone districts to compensate for the elimination of credits, and allowable common area for multi-family buildings will be increased to make up for changes to how common area is defined. There is one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants consideration by the PEC. Over the past five years, the development of single family and duplex homes on lots zoned for multi-family development has become very common. Single family and duplex homes are permitted in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential districts. However, such development "falls through the cracks" with regard to GRFA credits. II. CHANGES TO THE GRFA DEFINITION Prior to amending the GRFA definition, this type of development did not qualify for single family and duplex credits (garages, storage, mechanical and airlocks) because these credits were available to properties in the Single Family, 2-Family and P/S zone districts only (Hillside Residential has been added to this list). In order to qualify for multi-family credits (mechanical, airlocks, common area and garages), two or more units must be in a building. As a result, the development of single family and duplex structures on multi-family zoned lots does not qualify for multi-family credits. Recently approved amendments to GRFA solved part of this problem by "awarding" credits based on development type and not by zone district. As a result, a single family or duplex structure on a RC, LDMF or MDMF lot does qualify for the garage credit. However, these units do not benefit r from the 425 square feet of GRFA built back into the system to compensate for how stairways are measured (150), and the elimination of other credits (200-storage, 50-mechanical, 25-airlock), because this square footage was added directly to the density control section of the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside districts. 1 111. AMENDMENT ALTERNATIVES Clearly, the development of single family and duplex structures on multi-family zoned lots have been impacted by changes made to the definition of GRFA. The key questions are how much square footage have these changes "cost" this type of development, how can the situation be remedied, and should changes be made across the board to the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts? Impact of GRFA Chances From a technical standpoint, the only material change (i.e., loss of square footage) to this type of development is from the change to calculating stairways. Under the old definition, stairways were counted once at the lowest level. With the new definition, alf levels of a stairway are counted as GRFA. 150 square feet was determined to be the amount of square footage needed to compensate for this change. Ali other changes to the GRFA credits system are not relevant -simply because this type of development never qualified for these credits in the first place. One may argue, however, that the storage, mechanical and airlock credits were always intended for single family and duplex development regardless of what zone district the home is built in -the old GRFA definition allocated the credits based on zone districts simply because nobody envisioned single family or duplex development on multi-family lots. If one accepts this argument, 425 square feet should be built back into the system. Depending upon ones perspective, anywhere from 150 to 425 additional square feet of GRFA should be made available to single family and duplex structures in the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Alternatives for Building GRFA Back (nto Svstem Previously approved amendments to GRFA built square footage back into the system by adding GRFA to the density control section of the Single Family, 2-Family, Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential districts. in this case, allowable GRFA is 25 square feet for every 100 square feet of site area plus 425 square feet per allowable unit. The easiest alternative for building square footage back into the system for this type of development would be to amend the density control section of the RC, LDMF and MDMF districts with a clause that adds X square feet of additional GRFA per unit for single family or duplex development. Difference Between Zone Districts Before increasing GRFA for single family or duplex development in these three zone , districts, it is important to understand the level of development permitted by each of them. These densities are based on "buildable acres". Residential Cluster - .25 GRFA/6 units per acres Low Density Multi-Family - .30 GRFA/9 units per acre Medium Density Multi-Family - .35 GRFA/18 units per acre 2 - The Single family, 2-Family and Primary/secondary districts each permit .25 GRFA, while Hillside Residential is at .2 GRFA: Each of the three multi-family districts allow more units than would be permitted on a single family or duplex lot, and two of the three multi-family districts permit more GRFA than is allowed In the SF, 2-Fam, P/S or Hillside districts. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the density control section of the RC, LDMF and MDMF zone districts. This square footage would compensate for the change in how stairways are calculated, and would be available to single family or duplex development only. It also compensates for the 25 sq. ft. for the airlock and 50 sq. ft. for mechanical. Counting stairways at each level is the only change to the GRFA system that directly impacts this type of development. Single family and duplex development in these three zone districts were never eligible for other credits. However, staff believes some additional compensation is justified as the properties do not normally use typical common area benefits. One may argue that this type of development warrants the same 425 square foot of GRFA that was built back into the system in the SF, 2-Fam, P/S and Hillside zone districts. However, the level of development permitted in the three multi-family zone districts must be considered. The LDMF and MDMF zone districts permit far more units and GRFA than the single family or duplex districts. While one acre of single family or duplex zoned land will permit more GRFA than a one acre RC site, the same one acre RC site permits six units, a one acre P/S site five units, and a one acre SF site three units. 225 square feet is an equitable increase to compensate for the new definition of GRFA. c:\pec\tov\grfa.513 3 - ORDINANCE N0. 17 SERIES OF 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 18.04.363, SITE COVERAGE - HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY ZONE DISTRICTS; AND AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.04.360, DEFINITION OF SITE COVERAGE; SECTION 18.14.110, SITE COVERAGE= RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER; SECTION 18.16.110, SITE COVERAGE-LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.18.110, SITE COVERAGE- MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.20.110, SITE COVERAGE-HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT; SECTION 18.22.110, SITE COVERAGE-PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT; SECTION 18.24.150, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT; SECTION 18.26.120, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE II DISTRICT; SECTION 18.27.090, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL CORE III DISTRICT; SECTION 18.28.120, SITE COVERAGE-COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER DISTRICT; SECTION 18.29.090, SITE COVERAGE-ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; SECTION 18.30.110, SITE COVERAGE-HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT; SECTION 18.32.110, SITE COVERAGE-AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT; DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, site coverage is an important tool for controlling the level of development in the town; and WHEREAS, modifications to site coverage as defined in the Vail Municipal Code are necessary to ensure its effectiveness; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, The Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts is hereby repealed. Section 2 18.04.360, the definition of Site Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted enacted to read as follows: 1 - 18.04.360 Site Coverage "Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. Section 3 Section 18.14.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.14.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 25 percent of the total site area. Section 4 Section 18.16.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.16.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 35 percent of the total site area. Section 5 Section 18.18.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 2 - 18.18.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 45 percent of the total site area. Section 6 Section 18.20.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.20.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 55 percent of the total site area. .Section 7 Section 18.22.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.22.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 55 percent of the total site area. Section 8 Section 18.24.150, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: f 18.24.150 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 80 percent of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. In Commercial Core I, ground level patios and decks shall be included in site coverage calculations. Section 9 Section 18.26.120, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.26.120 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 70 percent of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3 Section 10 Section 18.27.090, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.27.090 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 40 percent of the total site area. Section 11 Section 18.28.120, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.28.120 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total site area. Section 12 Section 18.29.090, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.29.090 Site Coverage , Site Coverage shall not exceed 60 percent of the total site area. Section 13 Section 18.30.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.30.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 75 percent of the total site area. Section 14 Section 18.32.110, Coverage is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.32.110 Site Coverage Site Coverage shall not exceed 5 percent of the total site area. 4 Section 15 The provisions of this ordinance shall not be effective for any application for development which has been submitted to the Department of Community Development, and accepted by the same, on or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant submitting the application before July 1, 1991. Section 16 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 17 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 18 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions 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 or 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. 5 Section 19 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk c:\ord\ord 17.91 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to site coverage regulations for multi-family and commercial buildings. Applicant: Town of Vail ........r............rr...w :re-.....':<...': :pa•~ro~:xl... r.xc.R ~;;fxa ,ee;yr ,p!. ::•g:;:•: . •a~. f:::.• 3~~.^,> ::v::::::n.. r. .......:.Lv::.. n... r.............. v.:. ~ ~ii:~ v. ~n..vwvh:Wh+w~{v~:\~vvww#Y~li»OON••ii~. 'I~S.~I.... Amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed single family and duplex residential development only. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations is to address multi-family and commercial development. This memo outlines the issues and recommendations for amending site coverage. An accompanying memorandum deals with GRFA in multi-family development. The recommendations outlined in this memo have been discussed and agreed upon by the staff and Zoning Code Task Force. The PEC's action on this proposal is advisory. The Town Council has the final authority to approve, deny or modify these proposed amendments. I. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE COVERAGE AMENDMENTS, Prior to the PEC's review of amendments to site coverage last fall, the question of how the proposed amendments would affect multi-family and commercial buildings was raised. While it was the staff's intention that the new site coverage regulations would apply to all development in the same way, discussions during the amendment process had focused exclusively on single family and duplex development. For this reason, amendments to site coverage were modified so that they applied to single family and duplex development only. The new site coverage definition reads: "Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, Porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. 1 At the present time, this definition applies to property located in the Single Family, 2-family, Primary/secondary and Hillside Residential zone districts only. Delaying action on multi-family and commercial buildings was intended to allow the staff and Task Force an opportunity to discuss the implications of these amendments on other types of development and to inform the public that these changes are under consideration. II. IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW SITE COVERAGE DEFINITION The fundamental question is whether the new definition of site coverage is appropriate for multi- family and commercial development. The staff and Task Force agree that the new definition is not only appropriate, but also necessary. The three major changes made by the new definition of site coverage are: 1) Cantilevered portions of buildings are now calculated as site coverage. 2) Any portion of a roof overhang that extends more than four feet from the face of a building is now included in site coverage calculations. 3) Any portion of a covered deck or similar feature that extends more than four feet from the face of a building is now included in site coverage calculations. The justification for these changes is that these design features affect the appearance of a building. Cantilevered buildings, overhangs and covered decks all add to building bulk - as such, it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to establish some limit on the extent of these design features. Cantilevers, overhangs and decks contribute to the bulk and mass of a building, regardless of the uses within the building. For this reason, it is reasonable to use the same site coverage definition for a commercial or multi-family building as is used for a single family residence. It is important to remember that this amendment deals with the definition of site coverage only -allowable site coverage ratios will remain unchanged. If adopted, this amendment should have no significant affect on the design of multi-family and commercial buildings. Adopting the new definition would not prohibit cantilevers, overhangs or decks. The definition would merely establish parameters that in some cases may result in these features being calculated as site coverage. A large cantilever or overhang, something that presently does not count as site coverage, would now count. Depending upon the overall design of the building, this change could put a building over its allowable site coverage. However, in such cases it is appropriate that these design features are included in site coverage calculations because they contribute to the bulk and mass of a building. 2 III. SITE COVERAGE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT A specific concern of the Task Force was the impact .of this definition on arcades and covered walkways on commercial buildings -would the new site coverage regulations discourage what is often considered a desirable design feature? The answer is no, in most cases the new site coverage regulations will not change how arcades are calculated. The Westin, Crossroads, Lazier Arcade and the West Vail Mall all have arcades or roofed walkways that would be included as site coverage under the new definition. However, with the exception of the West Vait Mall and Crossroads West, each of these elements would have counted as site coverage under the existing definition because in each case, the arcade or overhang is supported by columns and has floor area above. As with decks and overhangs, it is recognized that with this new definition. an arcade or covered walkway may contribute to a building exceeding allowable site coverage. However, one cannot simply point to an arcade as the only element of a building that exceeds site coverage. An architect will have to consider arcades as one element of the overall design of a building when calculating site coverage. This new definition will not prohibit arcades. but will require that they be considered during the design process. IV. SITE COVERAGE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, Another issue, or question, raised by the Task Force was whether this change would affect low to medium density residential projects (townhome or condo projects in RC or LDMF zone districts). As with the other types of development, the answer is that this amendment will generally have no affect on low to medium residential development. The relationship between density and site coverage (and for that matter building height) is important. Development standards must be sufficient to accommodate permitted development. Allowable site coverage in RC is 25% and in LDMF it is 35% - as compared with 20% in single family and duplex districts. Site coverage is greater in RC and LDMF in order to accommodate the increased development permitted in these districts. Adopting the new definition of site coverage for these zone districts will not alter the relationship between density and site coverage. First, the change in what constitutes site coverage is relatively minor. Secondly, the four foot "buffer" should accommodate most overhangs or decks - without changing site coverage calculations. Finally, cantilevered elements and large overhangs add to building bulk, and should be included in site coverage calculations if they exceed thresholds established by the new definition. V. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the definition of site coverage recently approved for single family and duplex development be amended so it is used for all types of development. Two steps must be taken for this amendment to be completed: 3 ' 1. First, the definition of site coverage must be clarified. The new definition was initially approved as "Site coverage -Hillside Residential, Single-family, Two-family and Primary/Secondary zone districts". This was done because the definition was intended for these four zone districts only. The definition should be amended to simply read "Site coverage". With this change, the new definition will apply to development in all zone districts. 2. Secondly, site coverage regulations in each zone district need to be reworded to: "Site coverage shall not exceed X % of the total site area". This amendment would not change the percentage of site coverage permitted in each zone district. Rather, the change is necessary to avoid confusion over what definitions to use when calculating site coverage. Presently, the wording in each zone district is "No more than X % of the total site area shall be covered by buildings". This wording creates confusion over what terms to use in calculating site coverage. Amendments will clarify this by specifically referring to site coverage only. With these changes, amendments to site coverage will be complete. These amendments are needed for commercial and multi-family buildings for the same reason they were needed for single family development - to establish some limit on design features that are presently not regulated, and have the potential to add considerable bulk to buildings. c:lpecltovls itecov.513 4 RESOLUTION NO. 12 SERIES 1991 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERSONNEL RULES BY THE TOWN MANAGER WHEREAS, the Town Manager has submitted to the Town Council an Amendment to the Personnel Rules of the Town of Vail, and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to approve this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. The Town Council hereby approves the Amendment to the Personnel Rules submitted by the Town Manager which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passing by the Town Council. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1991. I Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: ' Pamela A, Brandmeyer, Town Clerk c:\resolper EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL RULES WHEREAS, Personnel Rule 10.2, Appeal of Disciplinary Action fails to specify the manner in which the Town Manager may hear the appeal of a disciplinary action, and WHEREAS, Section 10.2C provides that the Town Manager will hear an appeal as outlined in Section 10.2.B.2-b, and WHEREAS the Personnel Rules as presently constituted contain no such Section 10.2.B.2-b, and WHEREAS in an effort to clarify Section 10.2C the Town Manager hereby sets forth the following amendment to the Personnel Rules of the Town of Vail: Section 10.2C paragraph 2a is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.2C 2a Department Head. The written appeal may be submitted to the Department Head of the respective department if the Department Head has not been the disciplinary authority as allowed in Section 9.2 of these Rules and Regulations, and the Department Head has remained responsible, uninvolved and impartial in the disciplinary action which is being appealed. The Department Head can conduct an investigation and hear information as he/she sees fit. The Department Head reserves the right to alter a supervisory decision as such course is deemed appropriate. The Department Head's decision shall be made within seven (7) working days upon receiving the written appeal from the Personnel Director. If the appeal is not settled at the Department' Head level to the -1- satisfaction of the employee, and the employee wishes to pursue the appeal, the employee may appeal the decision of the Department Head to the Town Manager. The Town Manager shall hear any appeal submitted to him, whether that submission is by the Director of Administrative Services or by an employee who wishes to appeal a Department Head's initial decision, in the following manner: 1. The Town Manager may designate an impartial representative or impartial representatives to review the appeal on a date established by the Town Manager. 2. Upon reviewing the appeal as given by both parties the impartial representative or representatives shall submit the findings of their review to the Town Manager within seven (7) calendar days. The Town Manager will analyze the findings of the review and conduct another investigation or hear other information as he sees fits. The Town Manager shall render a timely decision and reserves the right to alter the disciplinary action if such i course is deemed appropriate. The decision of the Town Manager shall be final. 3. The Town Manager may, at his discretion, elect not to appoint an impartial representative or representatives and proceed directly with the review of the appeal. The Town Manager may hold an investigation or hear information as he sees fit.. The Town Manager shall render a timely decision and reserves the right to -2- alter the disciplinary action if he deems such action appropriate. The decision of the Town Manager shall be final. Director, Administrative Services Date Town Manager Date -3- 'f . : • i i ...«...A_.,.. _ WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 5/31,/91,_,:: - ' Page 1 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements f r Marijke Brofos has indicated an interest ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) annexation. Steve will call for assessor' in petitions but has not picked them up. #'s re: revenue the TOV is not collecting Larry was holding off so annexation from property taxes. could occur closer to end of next year for tax purposes. Council is mulling over next step. 7/17 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND KEN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, Researching appropriate ordinances. SKATES/SKATEBOARDS etc., be prohibited from highly pedestrian Discuss at Staff Meeting 6-7-91. ized areas in the Village and Lionshead, including the parking. structures? - - s { 7/27 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric Undergrounding may occur in fall of EAST VAIL to establish special improvement district(s) '91 or '92 or spring of '92. Engineer for underground utilities in East Vail. hired and design underway. , 9/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 LARRY: Homeowners Assn. would like Town to Ron contacted Jim Fritze about abatement. purchase common area for back taxes and The Town tax liability would be about penalties. $5,500. County attorney says no tax abatement is possible for a property such as this. 12/18 MILLRACE CONDO. ASSN. KRISTAN: Respond. Vail Ventures will respond in writing to LETTER our letter. Shelly has written a second follow-up request, which was included in your 4/2 packet. 1/11/91 SNOW DUMP RON/GREG: Work out site acquisition with Design has begun. Soil testing and Complete design. mapping completed. Back to PEC 5-13-91. Lease being drawn up for 7 year time period. Second reading of ordinance 6-4- 91. 2/5 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH RON/ROB: Let`s be prepared to award this Final award to be given at the RECOGNITION (request: Rose) spring. 7-16-91 evening meetings. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 5/31/91.' , Page 2 of 3, 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS ~ ~ ' ' _ 4/9 PUBLIC UTILITIES ACQUISITION STEVE BARWICK: Reassess municipal CML has provided info: for Steve:': A involvement/ownership of public utilities. special session at CML on public utilities Provide budget in 1992 for feasibility stud will be held. Information forthcoming.. 5/7 PARKING-IN-LIEU/CCII KRISTAN/STAFF: Establish time schedule for Back to Council by mid-June when all, (request: Gibson) review of fees for this commecial area. Council members are present: ' 5/7 VA/2% SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to change Research is underway. (request: Gibson/Lapin) this to a mandatory TOV tax collection. i 5/7 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE STREET PETE: Lights have been out from Ski Club _ Will do. Waiting for utilities to be _ _ , LIGHTS (request: Steinberg) Vail east for some time. reconnected at water treatment station. 5/14 BRONCOS TICKETS EVERYONE: Kent Rose has 3 sets of season tickets available, Section S-11, north of the 20 yd. line. Contact him to negotiate. 5/14 IMPROVEMENTS TO MULTI- KRISTAN: What incentives can the TOV Research underway. FAMILY BUILDINGS provide to condominium/townhouse associa- (request: Fritzlen/Lapin) tions to initiate/expedite this process? Investigate what California and Hawaii have on their books to require the escrowing of money for the life of a property (i.e., in regard to replace- ment of that property). Chuck Taylor, a homeowner at the Racquet Club, is a contact. 5/14 VIEW CORRIDORS KRISTAN: Research additional corridors Long-term project to be brought to Council to be legislated. within next 6 months. t WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 5/31/91,- _ - Page:.3.: of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 5/10 GORE CREEK PROMENADE GARY/KRISTAN/GREG/PETE/LARRY: Was money Working with owners to try to resolve PAVERS AND DRAINAGE PROBLEM collected from property owners to resolve the issue. (request: Staff) this health and safety issue. Specifically the Lancelot, Blu's, and John Galt. Long term, what is the mechanism for correcting this situation and other similar ones? 5/10 FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS STEVE BARWICK: Contact VA to move the Will do. DISPLAY IN TOWN, launching site. (request: Staff) , 5/21 LIONSHEAD DESIGN KRISTAN: Sherry Dorward and Eldon Beck.wil be conducting an all day workshop on Thurs y, June 6. Agenda to follow.