HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-29 Support Documentation Town Council Special Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1996
5:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
1. Discussion between Vail Town Council and Breckenridge Town Council re: (1 1/2 hr.)
2. Adjournment - 7:00 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/5/96, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/12196, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1115/96, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
C:IAGENDA.TCS
PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
TuesdaY. October 29. 1996
No afternoon Work Session due to Sth tuesday of the month.
A Special EveningWork Session between the Breckenridge Town Council and the Vail Town
Council will be held at 5:30 p.m. in the Town of Vail Council Chambers.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
(as of 10/16/96)
November, 1996
In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance
and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the foliowing times:
EVENING MEETINGS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the fir and third Tuesday evenings of each month,
starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public
audience for conducting regular Council business.
WORK SESSIONS
Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before
the C:ouncil, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on every
Tuesday afternoon.
THE NOVEMBER, 1996, VAIL TOWN COUNGL MEETlNG SCHEDIILE
lS AS FOLLOWS:
Tuesdav. November 5, 1996
Work session............ 12:00 P.M. (scarting dme determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesday November 12, 1996
Work session............ 12:00 Q.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesdayf November 19, 1996
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (surting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesday, November 26,. 1996
Work session............ 02:00 P.M. (swrting time determined by length of agenda)
TOWN OF VAIL
J ~ • v~
~
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant Town Manager
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
?
TOWN OF VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY REPORT
OCTOBER 22, 1996
I. EVALUATION OF VAIL'S GRFA REGULATIONS
The purpose of the GRFA Analysis is to evaluate potential alternatives to the Town's existing
zoning regulations that control the bulk and mass of residential buildings, specifically Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) zoning regulations. This report has been prepared to provide
background information to the Town Council, Planning Commission and public as an initial step in
the evaluation of the Town's GRFA system and the consideration of alternatives to GRFA.
This report provides a general overview of the rationale for regulating building bulk and mass and
the zoning techniques commonly used to implement such regulations; summarizes the Town's
current system of bulk and mass control; outlines the evolution of the Town's GRFA regulations;
assesses bulk and mass regulations of other resort communities; and describes five conceptual
alternatives to the existing GRFA system.
Thre:e major areas of concern identified by the Town regarding the existing GRFA system that have
pronlpted this evaluation are:
1) GRFA as a Means for Controllin,g Buildin Size
The size and shape of buildings (bulk and mass) are currently controlled by GRFA, site
coverage and building height regulations and to an extent by the design review process. It
has been suggested that GRFA is the least effective mechanism for controlling the size and
shape of buildings and that site coverage and building height regulations can provide
adequate control.
2) Time Required to Administer the Current 5ystem
A considerable amount of staff, homeowner, architect and contractor time is spent
explaining the system, calculating GRFA of proposed buildings and monitoring the
construction of new buildings. Questions have been raised as to whether the effort
necessary to administer GRFA is an efficient use of staff and applicant time.
3) Regulation of Interior Floor Space
The Town has received a number of comments from the community regarding the
appropriateness of the Town regulating the use of interior space within the exterior wa11s of
a home. For example, if the size and scale of a home is appropriate, does it really matter
what is done with interior floor space and does the regulation of interior floor space provide
any tangible public benefit?
WhiYe these three issues have prompted this analysis, one of the key steps in the public review of
the existing GRFA system is to confirm, or validate, these issues with the community. In
addition, it is anticipated that other issues or concerns -will be identif ed by- the communiry during
this process.
Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process:
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Brauri Associates, Inc. 1
~
:
~
1) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA
will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from the community, the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Town staff;
2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regulations which
control the size and shape of buildings are necessary;
3) This process will address single-family, duplex and primary/secondary residential
development only;
4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable
alternative.
II. BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL
Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a lazge role in
determining a community's chazacter, liveability and sense of place. Simply stated, bulk and mass
refers to the overall size, shape and scale of a building. Bulk and mass controls address many of
the factors that deternune the spatial and visual qualities of a communiry. Building bulk and mass
controls also help protect property values by providing some assurances of the type and intensity
of development that may occur on a site or throughout a community. These regulations establish
the design parameters and framework in which architects, developers, review staff and boards can
work.
The importance of controlling building size and spatial relationships was recognized long ago.
Early zoning regulations provided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensiry of
use. The Standard Zoning Enabling Act granted local legislative bodies the authoriry to regulate
and restrict: the height, number of stories, size, shape and placement of buildings and other
structures; the percentage of the lot that may be covered by buildings; the size of yards or other
open spaces; and the use of land to control population density, open space, and access to daylight
and air, and to limit congestion and over crowdedness. The act places this authority under the
police powers of the community used for protecting the public health, safery, morals or general
welfare.
OBJECTIVES OF BULK AND MASS CONTROLS
Communities establish height, bulk and intensity regulations to achieve a broad range of
objectives:
• Ensuring adequate access to daylight and air by limiting building height and controlling the
setback of buildings from street and property lines.
• Limiting congestion by controlling intensity of use, traffic, population, etc..
• Creating meaningful open spaces and landscape areas on site for aesthetics and character
• Mainiaming- a balance_between building scale_and the surrounding environment
• Preserving a sense of place, scale and communiry character
• Defining the proportions and character of public spaces and streets
• Defining urban form and/or rural character
• Preserving solar access to adjacent structures and sites
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. • 2
MECHANISMS FOR CONTROLLING BULK AND MASS
Communities utilize a variety of zoning and design regulations to control building bulk and mass in
order to achieve specific community objectives. The following summarizes the most commonly
used regulations. Although discussed individually, these mechanisms are typically used together
in order to create a system of bulk and mass control. Vail's current zoning regulations utilize most
of the examples described below.
1. Lot Covera e Controls
Lot coverage controls directly affect building bulk and mass by limiting the proportion of a
site that can be built upon or covered by improvements. Typical lot coverage controls
• include:
Maximum Site Covera2e - Site coverage limits the amount of a lot that can be covered by
buildings. Site coverage limits are usually expressed as a percentage of the lot. Site coverage
typically includes all portions of a lot covered by roofed structures as measured from exterior
walls of such buildings. Covered porches and car ports are sometimes included in site
coverage calculations.
Impervious Surface Ratio - This expanded site coverage concept establishes the maximum
proportion of a lot which may be covered by surfaces which do not readily absorb water.
Impervious surface typically includes all buildings, paved areas, all azeas covered by roofs
such as porches, decks, driveways and parking areas (paved or not), decks and patios,
walkways, etc.
Landscape Surface Ratio - Establishes the minimum area of a lot which is required to be
landscaped. Landscape regulations often address factors such as location of landscaping,
minimum dimension of landscape areas, minimum number of trees and shrubs and size of
plant material, etc. Landscape requirements can affect building mass by limiting building site
coverage or can help limit the perceived mass of a building.
Setback Requirements - Setbacks from front, side and rear lot lines establish open space
between buildings and ensure all buildings have adequate access to light and air. Setbacks
influence the spatial relationship between buildings, but do not directly affect the bulk and
mass of individual buildings.
2. Building Height
Building height directly controls building bulk and mass by regulating the maximum number
of feet or stories of a building. Height restrictions typically vary by zoning district. While a
variety of inethods are typically used to calculate building height, height is typically measured
to the top of pazapets or ridge lines or to the mid-point of ridge and eave lines to either
existing or finished grade below. In addition to quantitative standards, design guidelines are
often used to encourage varied roof planes and building heights.
3. Floor Area Controls .
Floor area controls influence building bulk and mass and intensity of use by limiting the
amount of floor area permitted on a site. A variety of inethodologies are used to regulate
floor area of a building:
GRFM ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 3
Maximum Floor Area Ratios - Floor area ratios (FAR) limit the maximum buildable floor
area of structures based on a ratio of floor area to lot size. Ratios typically vary by zoning
district, often with greater than 1:1 ratios in high density and commercial areas and less than
1:1 in low-density residential areas. A variety of inethods are used to determine what
portions of a structure aze calculated as floor area. Areas commonly excluded as floor azea
include enclosed parking, elevator shafts, stairways, attics with head room less than 5 feet,
open porches and exterior decks. In some cases multi-story spaces created by vaulted or
cathedral ceilings are calculated at a higher rate than other floor area. In other cases
basements spaces are not counted as floor area.
Maximum Floor Area: - Maximum floor area controls establish an absolute maximum cap on
floor area.
Minimum Floor Area Ratios - Sometimes used in residential areas to establish minimum
floor area per structure to protect against creation of sub-standard dwelling units.
Buildiniz Volume Ratio - Closely related to FAR control, Building Volume Ratios address
the total interior volume of a building. The purpose of the approach is to quantify
multi-story/vaulted spaces such as cathedral ceilings. While this technique represents a more
accurate method of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, it is not widely used due to
the cost and technology needed to implement this system.
4. Lot Size and Shane
Most zoning regulations which address building height and bulk are based on ratios or
percentages related to the size of a lot. As such, lot size and shape play an important role in
the overall size, bulk and orientation of structures.
5. Design Review
Each of the four quantitative standards described above influence the bulk and mass of a
building. However, even with these parameters the perceived bulk and mass of a structure
depends on a number of other design considerations. The bulk and mass of a structure can
be influenced by the placement and relationship of building forms and voids in building
facades; the setting, or context of the structure; the proportion and scale of windows, bays,
doorways, and other features; shadow patterns; building articulation and offsets; location and
treatment of entryways; variations of building height and roof lines; facade details; and the
use of materials, finishes and textures.
Design guidelines are often used as a complement to quantitative standards to address these
types of design considerations. The design review process is rypically most effective in
combination with chazacter plans, guidelines or pattern books which provide a clear direction
for development for various areas of the community.
III. VAIL'S BULK AND MASS CONTROLS
Vail's existing system of-controlling the-bulk-and mass of residential buildings utilizes three zoning
tools. The Town's definitions of site coverage, building height and GRFA are included at the end
of this report.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 4
1) Site Coverage
Maximum allowable site coverage in Vail's single-family, two family and primary/secondary
districts is 20°Io (allowable site coverage is limited to 15% on lots with greater than 30%
slope). The amount of allowable site coverage is directly proportional to the size of a lot.
For example, on a 15,000 square foot lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and
other improvements and on a 10,000 square foot lot only 2,000 square feet of site coverage
is permitted.. Site coverage includes the total horizontal area of any building, carport,
arcade, or covered walkway as measured from perimeter walls or columns at or above grade
and any roof overhang, eave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from
the building.
2) Buildin Hei2ht
Allowable building height in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is
30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is
measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more
restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires
buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This
definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build-up or elevate a site.
Allowable building heights are uniform in the single-family, duplex and primary/secondary
zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot.
3) GRFA
The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only.
GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number
of bedrooms) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces. Maximum
allowable GRFA in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 25
square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000
square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet
of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per
unit is also allowed. The Town's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an additiona1250 square
feet GRFA per unit for structures that are at least five years old.
Allowable GRFA is calculated on a graduate scale for lots over 15,000 square feet in size.
The ratio of allowable GRFA decreases for larger lots. For example, only 10 square feet of
GRFA are permitted for each 100 square feet of lot area over 15,000 square feet. The
purpose of this graduate scale is to limit the amount of allowable GRFA on larger lots.
Design Review The design review process does not specifically address building bulk and mass issues.
Other than a very generic statement in the guidelines that "structures sha11 be compatible with
existing structures, their surroundings, Compatibility can be achieved through the
proper consideration of scale nroportions, site planning There are no guidelines
that specifically address building bulk and mass.
The doning standards listed above are evaluated by the Planning Staff as a part of their review of ,
propased developments: This evaluation occurs prior- to -review by the Design R.eview Board or
Planning Commission. Final design review approval can not be obtained unless a project complies
with GRFA, site coverage, building height and other zoning standards.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 5
IV. EVOLUTION OF VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM
The following chronology summarizes the major changes that have been made to the GRFA
system over the past 27 years:
Ord. 7. 1969
This ordinance enacted the Town's first comprehensive zoning regulation. FAR, or "floor area
ratio" was defined and maximum floor azea ratios were established for residential development and
commercial development. The single-family and duplex zone district permitted up to .33:1 FAR
and also required a minimum floor area of 900 per unit. Vail's original zoning code did not include
building height or site coverage limitations.
Ord. 8. 1973
This was a comprehensive revision to the zoning code. A definition of Floor azea. Gross
Residential (GRFA) was established by this ordinance. Minor changes were made to allowable
GRFA in most districts. Building height, site coverage, and "Building Bulk Control" was also
added to multi-family zone district and other higher densiry districts. Building Bulk Control
established maximum length and off-set requirements for buildings.
Ord. 19. 1976
Comprehensive revision to Ord. 8 of 1973 which established height definition based on average
distance of the finished grade at lowest point, mid-point and highest point of exterior wall;
established minimum distances between buildings in various zone districts; established graduated
scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximum GRFA for duplex
structures of 4,000 square feet.
Ord. 30. 1977
Reduced allowable densities (allowable units) in most residential zone districts.
Ord. 50. 1978
Reduced allowable building height in single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to
30'; reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and NIDMF districts.
Ord. 37. 1980
Modified definition of GRFA by excluding crawl spaces with less than 6' 6" clearance; adding
garage credit for single-family, duplex and p/s development; definition of height changed to
distance between ridge and existing or finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping
roofs in single-family, duplex and p/s districts.
Ord. 41. 1982
Modified definition of GRFA by establishing definitions for crawl space and attic space, changing
the 6' 6" crawl space rule to 5', counting overlapping staircases only once, and adding credits for
mechanical space (50 sq. ft.), airlocks (25 sq. ft.), storage (200 sq. ft.), and solar heating rock
storage areas.
Ord. 4. 1985
Established the "250 ordinance" allowing for additions of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to homes
that are at least five years old.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 6
Ord. 36. 1988
Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwelling involves the
"complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof'.
Ord. 9. 1991
Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance was denied.
Ord. 15. 1991
Mociified the definition of GRFA by counting the total square footage of ali levels of a building
incliuding substantially enclosed decks; eliminating the credits for mechanical, storage, airlocks and
solar rock storage; and adding an additiona1425 square feet of GRFA per allowable unit in the
sing;le-family, duplex and primary/secondary districts.
Ord. 17. 1991
Mociified the definition of site coverage to include covered decks, stairways, etc, and overhangs
greater than 4'.
Ord. 17. 1994
Mociified definition of GRFA to include bay windows and established provisions for up to 60% of
allowable common area in multi-family buildings to be used as GRFA for Type III and N EHUs.
The evolution of GRFA and other bulk and mass regulations reveal a number of interesting points:
• The definition of GRFA has undergone at least four major amendments in the past 27 years.
• The Town's first zoning ordinance did include limits on F.A.R., however it did not include
height or site coverage regulations. Height and site coverage regulations were added in
1973.
• "Building bulk" control was added in 1973 and deleted in 1976. This regulation required
offsets in buildings to avoid large, unbroken wall planes.
• The 1980 amendment to the definition of height (distance between ridge and existing or
finished grade) was very significant in that it kept the height of buildings relative to the grade
of a lot and in doing so mirumized building bulk.
• The amendment to site coverage in 1991 added covered decks, patios and overhangs to the
definition of site coverage, effectively reduced the area of a lot that could be covered by
buildings.
V. SURVEY OF OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES
The following summarizes how other mountain resort communities regulate the bulk and mass of
low-density residential development. This not a scientific survey, rather it is a compilation of case
studies which demonstrates the variety of inethods used to regulate building bulk and mass.
Tovvn of Breckenridge, .Colorado
Brer,kenridge utilizes a performance based development review process which places an emphasis
on qualitative standards as opposed to quantitative standards. Breckenridge also has different
development standards for its historic downtown area and outlining residential areas. The
follc?wing analysis pertains only to the Town's outlying residential areas.
GRF.A ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 7
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
The Town does not limit the floor area of homes in outlying residential areas.
• Site CoveraQe
The Town does not have formal site coverage regulations. The area of a site covered by
buildings is regulated by platted building envelopes or minimum setbacks, and minimum
landscape/natural open space requirements.
• Buildin2 Hei2ht
Building height is regulated by a guideline that "discourages" homes over two stories.
• Design Review
While not referred to as a design review process, the Town does evaluate site planning and
architectural considerations during the review of development in outlying residential areas.
Landscaping, building colors and materials, and other zoning considerations (height,
driveway grades, etc.) for compliance with adopted standards and guidelines. The bulk and
mass of a structure is also considered for proposals that exceed two levels.
Other Considerations
The Town has averaged 32 permits for new single-family and duplex units in each of the last three
years. The average size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The
Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single-family development is
relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single-family homes involves staff
review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council.
Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia
This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single-family zone districts (RS-1 and RS-2). Whistler
includes a number of developments approved by "land use contract" (i.e. a Planned Unit
Development) which have site specific regulations that often allow more or unlimited floor area in
single-family homes.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
Floor area of single-family lots is limited to 325 square meters (3,496 square feet) or 35% of
the lot area, whichever is less. A garage credit of 56 meters (600 square feet) is allowed and
the definition of floor area includes a11 interior space, excluding crawl space, measured to the
outside of exterior walls.
• Site Coverage
Site coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area and includes the footprint of the building only
as measured at exterior-walls.
• Building He;ght
Buildings are limited to 7.6 meters (25 feet) and is measured from grade to the mean level
between the eave and the ridge.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 8
• Desig,n Review
The Town does not have a design review process.
Other Considerations
Based on comments from the planning staff, the type and intensity of single-family development
varies. The floor area of some, but not all, homes is "maxed" out. The staff does not perceive the
lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the
community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature
of how floor area is defined. The Town's by-laws do not allow for variance requests to density or
floor area.
Town of Aspen, Colorado
Aspen has experienced a pattern very similar to Vail's with regard to redevelopment within its
residential neighborhoods. This analysis pertains to Aspen's Moderate Densiry Residential Zone
district (R-IS), which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• F1oor Area Limitations
Floor area is limited by a graduate scale based on lot size. A 15,000 square foot lot would be
permitted 4,50(} square feet of floor area. Floor area includes all horizontal surfaces
measured to the exterior face of exterior walls. Totally sub-grade basement spaces and up to
500 square feet for garages are excluded from calculation as floor area. In certain cases
exterior decks and balconies are counted as floor area. The volume of vaulted space is also
addressed by applying a multiplier to floor space that has a floor plat greater than 10'.
• Site Coverage
There are no site coverage limitations in these zone districts. Landscape requirements
essentially establish a limit on site coverage.
• Building Height
Building height is limited to 25' and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the
eave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'.
• Design Review
The Tpwn does implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building
design and site planning.
Other Considerations
Two yeazs ago the Town went through a"monster home" debate. This debate concerned the demo
of smali Victorian homes and construction of Iarger homes. The issue was primarily over the
potentiai loss of neighborhood character that was resulting from these types of redevelopments.
Resolution of the issue was to incorporate design guidelines specific to building bulk and mass and
building scale. These. guidelines require homes to hav.e.a composition of additive forms which
include a"primary mass" and "secondary mass" and also mandate building offsets. The purpose
of these design guidelines is to avoid large, box-like structures and encourage structures that reflect
a composition of smaller building forms.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 9
~
Deer Valley Resort, Utah
While Deer Valley is located in Park City, development is regulated by the Deer Valley PUD. The
City's Residential Development District (RD) provides the underlying zoning for single-family
development at Deer Valley. In many cases the development regulations for subdivisions within
Deer Valley vary from the RD standards. For example, in many cases building envelopes
supersede setback requirements and building heights may vary on a lot by lot basis depending
upon site specific considerations.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
There is no floor area limitation in the RD zone district and many of the early subdivisions in
Deer Valley did not include floor area limitations. Recently the Town and developer have
worked together to establish maximum floor areas for each newly platted lot. Allowable
floor areas vary depending upon site conditions and range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet.
Floor area includes the area of a building enclosed by surrounding exterior walls and any
portion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area
calculations.
• Site Coverage
Unless specified by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, there are no
site coverage limitations. Most recent subdivisions in Deer Valley include building envelopes
for each lot which essentially establish a maximum site coverage area.
• Building Height
Unless specified otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Va11ey,
building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid-way
between the eave and ridge.
• Design Review
Both Deer Valley and the Ciry implement a design review process that addresses all aspects
of building design and site planning. Deer Valley design guidelines include specific reference
to building bulk and mass and building scale.
Other Considerations
In many cases single-family development in Deer Valley does maximize allowable square footage.
A representative of the developer indicated that the Deer Valley design review process effectively
controls building bulk and mass, however, there have been cases where building envelopes have
been too small to adequately accommodate allowable square footage which on occasion
Steamboat Springs, Colorado
Residential areas in Steamboat Springs include older "in-town" neighborhoods and newer large-lot
subdivisions in outlying areas. The analysis below pertains to the Town's low-density residential
zone districts.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
There are no floor area limitations in Steamboat Spring's low density residential districts.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 10
• Site Covera2e
There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential
zone districts.
• Building Height
Building height is limited to two stories or up to three stories if additional setbacks are
provided.
• Desi2n Review
The Town does not have a design review process for single-family homes but many
subdivisions have private covenants that include a design review process.
Other Considerations
Steamboat Springs is about to re-write their development regulations and floor area, site coverage
and design review may be considered as a part of this re-write process. However, the town
planner indicated that there is no real concern in the community with the size and design of single-
family homes that are currently being constructed.
Beaver Creek Resort, Colorado
Development regulations in Beaver Creek are established by the Beaver Creek PUD Guide and are
implemented by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board and the Eagle Counry Community Development Department.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creek does not limit
the floor area of single-family homes.
• Site Coverage
Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been
established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within
platted building envelopes.
• Building Height
Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the
distance from grade to a mid-point between the ridge and eave at various points around a
building. This averaging systems has allowed for portions of buildings to exceed 35' by
significant margins. Beaver Creek recently amended building regulations to limit the absolute
height of a building to no more than 50'.
• Design Review
Beaver Creek has a very involved design review process which specifically address building
bulk and mass. - -
Other Considerations
Beaver Creek is certainly known for its large single-family homes and the resort's development
regulations encourage this rype of development. While the lack of floor area limits may be a factor
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 11
in the size of homes that have been built in Beaver Creek, a more direct factor is probably the way
building height is measured. Beaver Creek's method of averaging building height allows for very
large building mass on one or more elevations of a building.
Sun Valley, Idaho
Sun Valley is predominantly a second-home community with much of the local population residing
in either Ketchum or Haley. Residential development trends in Sun Valley have been quite similar
to Vail, Aspen and other Colorado resort communities.
Bulk and Mass Controls
• Floor Area Limitations
There are no floor area limitations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts.
• Site Coveraize
Site coverage is limited to 2,500 square feet on lots up to 10,891 square feet and a graduate
scale is used for lots greater than 10,891 squaze feet. A 15,000 square foot lot would be
permitted 2,842 square feet of site coverage (18.9%).
• Building Hei,~ht
Building height is limited to 30' and is measured from natural grade to the highest point of
the roof. Building height up to 35' may be permitted if additional setbacks are provided.
• Design Review
The Town does implement a design review process and bulk and mass is often considered in
the Town's review of single-family development. The Town's design guidelines do not
specifically address bulk and mass, however proposals have been denied due to inappropriate
bulk and mass. Other Considerations
According to the town planner, there is a trend toward larger homes with few below 4,000 square
feet and 7,000 square foot homes are not uncommon. There is a concern in the Sun Valley area
with "trophy homes", however this concern is primarily in areas of Blaine Counry located outside
of Town boundaries.
V I. CONCEPTUAL BULK AND MASS ALTERNATIVES
Five conceptual alternatives to the Town's existing GRFA system are described below. These
alternatives are assessed relative to how each responds to the three primary issues of concern with
the existing GRFA system. Zoning implications with regard to the implementation of the
alternative, potential pros and cons of the alternative and other issues to consider regarding the
alternative are also discussed.
These five conceptual altematives are not intended-tabe a fmite list- of the only alternatives that may
be suitable for Vail's. Rather, they represent a range of alternatives that are intended to provide a
framework for discussions with the community, Planning Commission and Town Council. It is
anticipated that other alternatives or variations of alternatives listed below will be identified during
this process.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 12
r
Conceptual Alternative #1 - No Action
Description of Alternative
This alternative would leave the existing GRFA system in place. No changes would be made to
allowable GRFA or the definition of GRFA.
Objective of Alternative
Accept the three identified issues as "givens," and continue with the existing system.
Zoning 1=1ications
This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations.
Response to Three Identified Issues
• Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for
controlling building bulk and mass.
• Does not address the "appropriateness issue" of the Town regulating the use of space within
the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes.
• Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing
GRFA system.
Other Considerations
• Assuming there is a general comfort level with the size of homes that are being buiit in Vail,
this alternative would essentially maintain the status quo.
• No action would be needed to implement this alternative.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 13
Conceptual Alternative #2 -"Conversion of Interior Space"
Description of Alternative
Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently
exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home.
Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be
po change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction.
Objective of Alternative
This approach is intended to allow flexibiliry to owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be
created within the interior space of a home (i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc). In
the past the Council has had some difficulty denying variance requests for additional GRFA which
do not affect the bulk and mass of a home. This alternative would allow for such additions.
Zoning linplications
This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations.
Response to Three Identified Issues
• Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for
controlling building bulk and mass.
• Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space
within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing
homes.
• Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing
GRFA system.
Other Considerations
• Could prevent illegal conversions and ensure that work is done in conformance with building
code standards.
• Could increase the number of building applications and the amount of staff time required to
implement the GRFA system.
• This alternative may result in new homes being designed such that new interior space could
be converted to GRFA in the future (i.e. vaulted spaces are designed in new construction to
allow for future conversion to GRFA), the end result of which would be buildings designed
as if there-were no GRFAlimit at all: -
• Consideration should be given to not allowing the conversion of existing garage space to
GRFA.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 14
~
r
Conceptual Alternative #3 - Elimination of GRFA/Addition of Design Guidelines
Description of Alternative
This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family,
duplex and primary/secondary buildings. GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures
that contain more than two units.
With this amendment the bulk and mass of single-family and duplex development would be
controlled by site coverage and building height only. In order to provide assurances to prevent the
development of large, non-descript boxes, this alternative would also include new design
guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off-sets,
scale, etc.
Objective of Alternative
The objective of this alternative is to address each of the three issues identified with the current
GRFA system. This alternative would place the burden of controlling bulk and mass on site
coverage, building height and design guidelines.
Zoning Implications
With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and
deternuning the 60°Io/40% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary.
Response to Three Identified Issues
• Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for
controlling building bulk and mass.
• Does address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the
exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes.
• Does address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA
system.
Other Considerations
• Elimination of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maacimize site coverage and building
height, resulting in large/box-like structures.
• Eliminating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts
on adjoining properties.
• Site coverage would become the primary limiting factor for controlling building size, with the
elimination of CRFA the Town could potentially see very large homes on larger lots because
sach lots are permitted greater site coverage.
• Elimination of GRFA may result in larger, more livable employee housing units.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 15
.
Alternative #4 - Eliminate Basement Space as GRFA
Description of Altemative
This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely
below grade from calculation as GRFA.
Objective of Alternative
The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e. space below grade).
Zoning Implications
This alternative would not create conflicts with other sections of the zoning code.
Response to Three Identified Issues
• Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for
controlling building bulk and mass.
• Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space
within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing
homes.
• Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing
GRFA system.
Other Considerations
• This alternative would indirectly create additional allowable GRFA for many properties.
Basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA would no longer be considered
GRFA under this alternative, thereby creating new GRFA that could be utilized above grade.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 16
~
,
Conceptual Alternative #5 - Volumetric Control
Description of Alternative
In lieu of using square footage as a means of controlling bulk and mass, this system would rely on
the volume of above-grade interior space expressed in cubic feet. This alternative would require all
applications to be submitted in CAD (computer aided design) form. A CAD program would be
utilized to calculate the volume of the building.
Objective of Alternative
The objective of this alternative is to provide a more accurate method of regulating the bulk and
mass of buildings.
Zoning 1=1ications
With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and
deternuning the 60%/40°Io split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary.
Response to Three Identified Issues
• Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for
controlling building bulk and mass.
• Does not to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space
within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within eacisting
homes.
• Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing
GRFA system.
Other Considerations
• While this may potentially be the most direct, effective way of calculating the bulk and mass
of a building, this alternative would not prevent the design of non-descript boxes.
• Potentially burdensome process for applicants because it would require a11 proposals to be
done in a CAD format.
• Could increase the amount of staff time required to implement the system.
• Would need to establish allowable volume of space pernutted on a lot.
- • Have not identified any communities which utilize such a system.
GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT
Braun Associates, Inc. 17
~
Agenda last revised l 0/21/96 3pm
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, October 28, 1996
AGENDA
Project Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Deuartment 11:00 am
QUORUM - (November 11, 1996)
Site Visits 12:30 pm
1. Simba Run Building - 1100 N. Frontage Road
2. McCully - 2704 Larkspur Court
3. Lodge Tower - 200 Vail Road
4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive
5. Red Sandstone - a portion of Parcel A and part of Biock D, Lionsridge Filing #1
Driver: George
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3ra floor,
utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8026 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
2. A request for a sign variance to allow for a freestanding sign for an individual business in a
multi-tenant building, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Mountain Haus.
Applicant: Leslie and James Glendining
Planner: Dirk Mason
3. A request for a common area variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the conversion
of one interior parking space to common area, located at 200 Vail Road/Part of Lots A, B and
C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Tower Condominium Association, represented by Stan Cope
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
4. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the
addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building.
Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen
Planner: Dominic Maurielio
5. A request for a setback variance for a garage addition, located at 2704 Larkspur CourULot 5,
Block 3, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Craig McCully
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I
r
Agenda last revised 10/21/96 3pm
6. A request to amend Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate
units, fractional fee units and time share license units" as a conditional use in Commerciai Core
II.
Applicant: Sonnenatp Properties, Inc, represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the
establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located
on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1.
Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in commercial zone
districts.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
9. A request for a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vaif Chapel, located at 19 Vail
Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11,1996
10. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5,
located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and ttl. The site is general{y located east of
Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and south of
Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development Department.
Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11,1996
11. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CCII zone district, to add common area, located at
710 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Spa Condominium Association
Planner: Dirk Mason
WITHDRAWN
12. A request for a sign variance to allow for a window sign greater than 25 feet above grade and to
allow 0.94 square feet of sign area beyond what is allowed, located at Crossroads Shopping
Center, 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot R, Block 5D, Vail Village ist.
Applicant: Linda Fried
Planner: Dirk Mason
WITHDRAWN
f
A
Agenda last revised 10/21/96 3pm
13. A request for a residential addition to allow for the addition of two gas fireplaces, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 332 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Bruce and Marcy Benson
Planner: Dirk Mason
WITHDRAWN
14. Information Update:
• Vail Tomorrow - see letter in packet.
15. Approval of October 14, 1999 minutes
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please calt 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
Community Development Department
Published October 25, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
f 4
Agenda last revised 10/16/96 4pm
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, October 16,1996
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / NO LUNCH - Community Development Department 2:45
QUORUM -(November 6, 1996) Arnett ? Alm ? Brittain ,l Hingst Amsden
SITE VISITS - None
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00
1. Young - Final review of new primary/secondary residence with a Type II EHiJ George
1225 Westhaven Lane/Lot 43, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Dirk
Applicant: Sentry Construction
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 3-0
CONSENT APPROVED
2. Kinney - Change to approved plans to the Kinney garage Dirk
5164 Main Gore Drive/Lot 13, Vail Meadows Filing No. l.
Applicant: Rol Kinney
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 3-0
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
3. Lions Mane - Request for approval of existing paint Dirk
116 Sandstone DrivelLot A 5-1, Slock A, Lionsridge
Applicant: Steve McSpadden
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 3-0
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 6,1996
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Clark Brittain Michael Arnett
Ted Hingst Brent Alm
Greg Amsden
Sta,ff Apj2rovals
Lion Square Lodge North - New sign Lauren
660 Lionshead Place
Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North Condo Assoc.
1
Curtin-Hill Sports - New Sign Lauren
254 Bridge StreetJCurtin-Hill Sports
Applicant: Curtin-Hill Sports
Campisi - Landscape modification Lauren
742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd
Applicant: Jeri Campisi & Betty Guffey
Pitto - Deck expansion Lauren
2920 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village l lth
Applicant: Russell Pitto
Chamonix Corners - New door Lauren
2271 N. Frontage Rd. West/Chamonix Corners
Applicant: 1 st Bank of Vail
Buffher Creek Chalets - Change to drivelbridge design George
Lot 6, Tract A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Buffher Creek Chalets - Change to approved plans George
Lot 6, Tract A, Lia Zneimer Subdivision
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Vail Spa - New entrance Dirk
710 West Lionshead Circle/Lot l, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing
Applicant: Vail Spa Condo Association
Ruth - Hot tub addition Tammie
800 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 7, Block l, Vail Potato Patch
Applicant: Lloyd D. Ruth
Smith - Replace gravel drive with pavers Lauren
1127 Vail Valley DrivelLot 11, Block 6, Vail Village 7th
Applicant: Ed Smith
Ferguson - Address marker Lauren
1295 Westhaven Circle/Lot 48, Glen Lyon
Applicant: David & Kathy Ferguson
Lion Square Lodge - Exterior lighting for parking area Lauren
660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead lst
Applicant: John Railton
Mounsey/Fox - Interior remodel Lauren
1670 Sunburst #9/Vail Golfcourse Townhomes
Applicant: Anne & Peter Mounsey
2
~
Vista Bahn Ski Rentals - Change sign color and add flags Tammie
278 Hanson Ranch Road/Bridge Street Lodge
Applicant: Jane Gros
Vai1 Athletic Club - Changes to approved plans Mike
352 E. Meadow Drive/a portion of Tract A, Vail Village lst
Applicant: John Perkins
Bankendorf - Replace asphalt with brick pavers Lauren
1328 Vait Valley Drive/Lot 22, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st
Applicant: Bill Bankendorf
Cunningham - Changes to previously approved exterior color Tammie
1319 Greenhill Ct./Lot 24, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Howard & Ellyn Kaye / Bany Cunningham
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project
planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD far
information.
3
TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert McLaurin
Council Members
FROM: Judy Popeck
DATE: October 17, 1996
RE: Investment Report
Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of September 30,
1996.
A$500,000.00 FHLB was purchased on September 13, 1996 with a yield
of 5.344% maturing on October 23, 1996. A$500,000.00 FHLB was
purchased on September 30, 1996 with a yield of 5.783% maturing on
September 25, 1997. A$500,000.00 FNMA was purchased on September
19, 1996 with a yield of 5.334% maturing on October 29, 1996. A
$700,000 FFC was purchased on September 30, 1996 with a yield of
5.297% maturing on November 15, 1996.
The estimated average yield for the debt service fund was 6.87% and
5.57% for the pooled cash fund. Currently the yield curve for 3
months, 6 months, and 1 year are 4.91%, 5.04%, and 5.36%
respectively.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Town of Vail, Colorado
Investment Repart
Summary of Accounts and Investments
For the Month Ending September 30, 1996
Balances Percentage
9/30/96 of Total
Money Market Accounts (see page 1)
Commercial Banks $2,917,109 16.49%
Local Government Investment Pools $800,148 4.520!0
Money Market Funds $78,227 0.44%
Total $3,795,484 21.45%
Commerciat Savings
Banks & Loans
Certificates of Deposit (see page 2)
Eagle County Institutions 0.00%
Other Colorado Institutions $198,000 $198,000 1.12%
National Institutions 0.00%
Tota{ $198,000 $198,000 1.12%
Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans ~ 0.00%
U.S. Government Securities (see page 3)
Treasury Notes & Bills $5,467,038 30.91%
GNMA's $62,719 0.35%
U.S. Savings Bonds . $30,000 0.17%
Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds $8,133,249 45.99°l0
Total $13,693,006 77.420/o
Total Porttolio $17,686,490 100.00%
~Maturing Within 12 Months $14,962,254 84.60%
Maturing Within 24 Months $1,582,825 8.95%
Maturing After 24 Months $1,141,411 6.44%
$17,686,490 100.00%
10l17l96
invsmjlp Page 2
Money Market Accounts
as of September 30, 1996
--For the Month of September--
Institution Balances
Type of Accounts High Low Average 9/30/96
COMMERCIAL BANK ACCOUNTS
First Bank of Vail - Operating
Interest 4.940% 4.830% 4.920%
$3,676,841 $2,633,753 $2,986,156
Balance $2,915,393
Colorado National Bank Super Now Account
Interest 3.100%
General Operating Account
Balance $1 716
Total Commercial Bank Accounts $2,917,109
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS
Colorado Trust Capital Projects Proceeds
Interest 5.150%
Balance $800,148
Total Local Government Investment Pool Accounts $800,148
MONEY MARKET FUNDS
Bank One Money Market Fund - Dana Investments
Interest 4.805%
Balance $72,071
Fidelity Investment Government Money Market Accounts
I nterest 5.150%
Bond Issue Reserve Account
Balance $6,156
Total Money Market Funds $78,227
Total all accounts $3,795,484
10/17/96
invmmjlp Page 3
Certificates of Deposit
as of September 30, 1996
Bank Name, Location Days to
Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity
Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value
BestBank, Thornton Colorado
FDIC 7.250% 16-Feb-95 16-Feb-97 139 $99,000
, Firstbank of Vail, Vail Colorado
FDIC 6.000% 5.830% 26-Jun-95 26-Jun-98 634 $99,000
Avg Yield 6.540% $198,000
10/17/96
invcdjlp Page 4
Government Securities
as of September 30, 1996
*""Treasury Notes & Bills"" Days lo Days
Interest Rate Purchase Maturfty Maturity to Book Par
Type Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value
TNote Pooled 6.880% 5.333% 21-Mar-96 31-Oct-96 224 31 $3,003,676 $3,000,000
TNote Pooled 7.500% 5.513% 17-Apr-96 31Jan-97 289 123 $1,006,409 $1,000,000
TStrip Pooled 5.970% 5.970% 26-Apr-96 15-May-97 384 227 $966,235 $1,000,000
TNote Pooled 5250% 6.370% 11Jun-96 31-Ju1-98 780 669 $490,718 $500,000
Average Yield 5.57% $5,467,038 $5,500,000
Average Days to Maturity 263
""GNMA'S"'
Years to Estimated
Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturfty Years to Principal
Pool Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding
5803 8.000% 8.480% 14-Nov-86 15-Oct-05 19.10 11.00 $21,910
13003 8.000% 9.500% 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 2020 12.00 $18,794
14659 8.000% 9200% 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 2120 13.00 $22,015
Avg Yield 9.0381/6 $62,719 .
'""U.S. Savings 8onds""`
Years to
Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Book Maturfty
Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturfty Value Value
EE 7.170% 01-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.00 0.00 $30,000 $30,000
"'Federal Agency Discount Notes 8 Bonds""
Days/Years Days/Years to
Interest Rate Purchase Maturfty to Maturfty Maturfty at Book Maturity
Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Month End Value Value
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 26-May-94 25-Mar-2008 13.8 11.5 $83,826 $109,734
FHLM Pooled - Dana 8.381% 28Jun-94 01-Mar-2019 24.7 22.4 $42,991 $66,355
FNMA Pooled - Dana 8.341% 28.1un-94 01-Oct-2017 23.3 21.0 $76,048 $97,572
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.187% 29Jun-94 01,1un-2014 19.9 17.7 $61,210 $110,531
SBA Pooled - Dana 9.475% 29,1un-94 25-Feb-2008 13.7 11.4 $53,825 $82,749
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.725% 29Jun-94 25Jun-2019 25.0 22.7 $101,046 $108,523
SBA Pooled - Dana 9.475% 18-Aug-94 25.1u1-2008 13.9 11.8 $65,623 $109,875
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 6.366% 22-May-96 01-Feb-2036 39.7 39.4 $59,445 $60,185
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.626 % 27-May-94 01-May-2020 25.9 23.6 $66,068 $100,577
FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.682% 01-Ju1-96 01-May-2026 29.9 29.6 $55,250 $55,304
FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.0031Y. 24,1un-96 01Jun-2026 30.0 29.7 $63,045 $71,318
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 7.851% 28-Aug-94 01-Aug-2018 23.9 21.8 $66,152 $74,245
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 12-Ju1-94 25-1un-2019 25.0 22.7 $61,958 $108,744
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.725% 08-May-95 25-Dec-2019 24.6 23.2 $98,223 $99,391
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 5.964% 28-Mar-96 01-Mar-2026 29.9 29.4 $60,358 $66,341
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.141 % 24,1an-96 01-Oct-2023 27.7 27.0 $63,624 $75,722
AverageYield 7.95% Subtotal $1,078,692 $1,397,166
Averege Years to Maturfty 23
FNMA Debt Service 6.912% 27-Feb-95 17Jan-97 1.9 109.0 $280,763 $280,000
FHLB Pooled 5.998% 26-Apr-96 10-Nov-97 1.5 1.1 $993,107 $1,000,000
FHLB Pooled 5.344% 13-Sep-96 23-Oct-96 40.0 23.0 $498,372 $500,000 FHLB Pooled 5.783 / 30-Sep-96 25-Sep-97 360.0 360.0 $500,499 $500,000
FNMA Pooled 5.334% 19-Sep-96 29-Oct-96 40.0 29.0 $497,934 $500,000
FHLMC Pooled 5.751% 28-Aug-96 28-Aug-97 1.0 332.0 $699,328 $700,000
FNMA Pooied 5.354% 07-Aug-96 08-Nov-96 93.0 39.0 $994,456 $1,000,000
FFC Pooled 5297% 30-Sep-96 15-Nov-96 46.0 46.0 $695,395 $700,000
FHLMC Pooled 5.301 % 23-Aug-96 22-Nov-96 91.0 53.0 $744,301 $750,000
FNMA Pooled 5.492% 12-Ju1-96 15-Oct-96 95.0 15.0 $498,934 $500,000
FFC Pooled 5.794'Y 27.1un-95 28-Apr-97 1.8 210.0 $651,468 $650,000
Subtotal $7,054,557 $5,930,000
Average Yield 5.61 %
Average Days/Years to Maturity 110 Totai $13,693,006
10/17/96
invtrjlp Page 5
OCT-25-19% 11:17 P.62
EAGLE VAI,I,EY HTJ]M[ANE SOCIETY
P.O. Box 2587 •Vail, CO 81658 o (303)476-5097
To: The Vaif Town Council October 25, 1996
From: The Eagle Valley Humane Society
The Eagle Vailey Humane Saciety supports the passage of Amendment 14.
Trapping, snaring and poisoning are cruel and indiscriminate methads of
taking wildlife.
Ideatiy, wildlife management shou{d be done by professionals but this is
not the case in Colorado any longer. After the Colorado Division of
Wildlife adopted relatively modest new furbearer regulations last year,
the agricultural community and sportsmen's groups such as Colorado
Wildlife federation, became outraged. That cesulted in the passage of
Senate Bill 167 which transferred "exclusive jurisdiction" of predatory
anima{s away from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and to the
Department of Agriculture. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Tom
Kourlis, is a sheep rancher himself!
A systematic dismantling of biologically sound and ethically acceptable
trapping regulativns took place. Senate Bill 167 is the most flagrant
example of special interest legislation to be passed in recent history.
The agricultural community has the right to pcotect their property and
livestock but trapping, snaring and poisoning need not be the methods of
choice. Preventative measures and shooting remain the most effective.
75% to 80% of coyates taken last year were kiAed by bullets.
There are fewer than 1000 licensed trappers in Colorado and the+r
average annua) income is under $100. This amendment witl not put
anyone aut of work.
As a civifized society, it is time for us to address what trapping, snaring
and poisoning really are; cruel, barbaric, indiscriminate and unnecessary.
Vote yes an Amendment 14.
Blondie Vuc+ch, past president
TOTAL P.02
~
,
i
FOR IMMEDtATE RELEASE
October 24, 1996
Contact: Rob LeVine, 476-2471
Coordinating Team Member
ACTION IDEAS FOR VAIL'S FUTURE IS FOCUS OF DESCRIBE VAIL TOMORROW
COMMUNITY CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 1& 2
(Vail)--If you have ideas for action on the affordable housing front, growth management, or
practically anything else that would make Vail a better place, bring those suggestions to the
Describe Vail Tomorrow Community Conference on Nov. 1 and 2. The conference marks
phase four of Vail Tomorrow's seven-step planning process aimed at community-wide problem
solving and action.
The conference is from 4:30 to 9 p.m. Friday, Nov. 1, and from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday,
Nov: 2. Both sessions are at Manor Vail Lodge. Anyone who cares about or is impacted by Vail
is encouraged to call 479-2451 to sign-up for all or a portion of the free conference activities.
Discounted child care is available at ABC School with advance registration by Oct. 30.
Rob LeVine, a volunteer who's helping oversee logistics of the Vail Tomorrow process, is
encouraging those who care about Vail's future to "think big." "This process is designed to bring
out the most imaginative ideas we can all come up with," he said. "If you have suggestions for
action, now's the time to bring them forward. Don't hold back."
The conference will include suggestions from more than 300 part-time residents who are
gathering in Denver, New York and Chicago this week to hear an update on #he Vail Tomorrow
project and to brainstorm ideas. The three cities hold the highest concentration of Vail's part-
time residents. The reaction has been overwhelming, LeVine said. "Many of our part-time
residents said they were feeling overlooked--until now."
In all, more than 1,000 people, including full-time residents, part-time residents, business
owners, commuters and others, have used their voices in the Vail Tomorrow process through
invo(vement in community roundtable discussions, responses to surveys or through attendance
at the first community conference in September. Those discussions were used to articulate
(more)
P.O. Box 1019 • Vail, Colorado 81698 • 970-479-2451 • http://vail.net/Vail-Tomorrow
,
Describe Vail Tomorrow/Add 1
Vail's values and to identify critical goal areas for action.
At the upcoming Describe Vail Tomorrow Conference, participants will be asked to make some
hard choices and lasting decisions. "It's important to realize that not everyone will get his or her
first choice and that those who attend will be the decision-makers," LeVine said.
The conference begins with a review of the 11 goal areas identified by those attending the
previous community conference in September:
• World Class Resort
• Natural & Built Environment
• Growth Management
• Safety & Security
• Building Community
• Economic Diversity
• Affordable Housing .
• Cultural & Educational Opportunities
• Youth
• Family
• Regional Cooperation
Then, research will be reviewed to see how Vail measures up in each of the 11 goal areas.
From there, participants will work together to decide which of the goal areas are most important
to pursue first. "It's important that we prioritize these goals so we can focus our energy and
resources on action," LeVine said.
The prioritized list established during the Friday night session will be forwarded for continuation
on Saturday, Nov. 2. There, the conference picks up with a review of the prioritized ranking,
then a full-scale brainstorming session to gather action ideas in all 11 goal areas. The session
will conclude with an enlistment of volunteers who are willing to continue to work in the prioritized
goal areas.
From there, the volunteers will join organizations and others with a role to play in
implementation to determine which of the brainstormed actions are best for Vail. Their
recommendations will be reported back to the community at a final conference in the spring, and
the actions will be underway.
(more)
+
Describe Vail Tomorrow/Add 2
Twenty-eight organizations have endorsed the Vail Tomorrow process and have agreed from
the outset to seriously consider recommendations forwarded to them during the process. They
are: Bravo! Colorado Music Festival; Chamber of Commerce; Colorado West Mental Health;
Eagle County Commissioners; Eagle County School Board; Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District; Kiwanis; Lionshead Merchants Association; Minturn Town Council; Partnership for
Environmental Programs, Inc. (PEEP); Snowboard Outreach Society; Town of Minturn Council;
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission; Town of Vail Design Review Board; U.S.
Forest Service Holy Cross Ranger District; Vail Alpine Garden Foundation; Vail Associates; Vail
Daily; Vail Mountain School Board; Vail Recreation District; Vail Religious Foundation; Vail
Symposium; Vail Valley Restaurant Association; Vail Valley Theatre Company; Vail Town
Council; Vail Valley Foundation; Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau; and Vail Village
Merchants Association Board.
For those unable to attend the Describe Vail Tomorrow Conference, action suggestions for
any or all of the 11 goal areas may be faxed to 479-2157 or mailed to Vail Tomorrow, P.O. Box
1015, Vail, Colo., 81658. All ideas received by 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 30, will be forwarded to
the conference participants.
For more information, or to sign-up, please call 479-2451.
# # #
f
~
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 22, 1996
Contact: Russell Forrest, 479-2146
Project Manager
Senior Environmental Policy Planner
TOWN OF VAIL SEEKS IDEAS ON ALTERNATIVES TO "GRFA"
ZONING REGULATIONS AT OCT. 30, 31 MEETINGS
(Vail)--The Town of Vail's current zoning regulation which limits the floor area of
residential development has been a point of discussion and debate for many years. In
looking to turn the GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area) debate into possible action, the
town is sponsoring two brainstorming meetings, Oct. 30 and 31, to review possibilities
for improvements.
The meetings are from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 30, and from 3 to 5 p.m.
Thursday, Oct. 31. Both sessions will take place in the Community Room at the Vail
Public Library and will cover the same topics. Architects, realtors, contractors and
others impacted by the town's zoning regulations are encouraged to attend one of the
sessions.
The evaluation process, initiated last August by the Vail Town Council, has included
an independent analysis of the current GRFA system, a survey of eight other resort
communities and development of four conceptual alternatives. Russell Forrest, senior
environmental policy planner in the Community Development Department, is project
manager, with assistance from Tom Braun of Braun Associates, Inc. "While some feel
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
1
r
G RFA/Add 1
GRFA is a necessary and effective means of controlling the size of residential buildings,
others feel the current system is cumbersome and ineffective in regulating building
size," Forrest said. "We'd like to use these meetings to probe those issues in more
detail to better understand the community's concerns and ideas regarding the current
GRFA system."
Vail's GRFA system was adopted in 1973 and has undergone 14 modifications in its
evolution. Today, GRFA regulates the amount of floor area permitted on a lot based on
a percentage of the lot's size. The definition of floor area includes all interior space
exclusive of garages, attics and crawl spaces. Maximum allowable GRFA for .
residential dwellings is .25 of the lot area for a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. For example, a 15,000
sq. ft. lot would be permitted 3,750 sq. ft. of GRFA, plus an additional 425 sq. feet per
each allowable unit. In certain cases, an additional 250 sq. ft. is permitted. Vail's
existing regulations include two other zoning tools to regulate bulk and mass--site
coverage and building height.
To date, the GRFA evatuation has focused on three areas of concern, Forrest said.
" First, the appropriateness of the town regulating the use of space within the exterior
walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing (vs. new) homes.
Second, is the overall effectiveness of GRFA as a means of controlling bulk and mass.
Third is the amount of staff time required to administer the existing GRFA system.
During the Oct. 30 and 31 meetings, examples of other regulation methods will be
discussed, including those used by Breckenridge; Whistler, British Columbia; Aspen;
Deer Valley, Utah; Steamboat Springs; Beaver Creek Resort; and Sun Valley, Idaho.
Also, participants will be asked to react to five alternatives, in addition to generating
(more)
,
~
~
GRFA/Add 2
other possible solutions. The five alternatives are: 1) retain the current GRFA system;
2) allow for conversion of existing interior space; 3) eliminate GRFA and allow site
coverage, building height and design standards to regulate bulk and mass; 4) eliminate
basement space as GRFA; 5) replace GRFA with volumetric control for above-grade
interior space in cubic feet.
Comments generated during the two meetings will be used to evaluate alternatives
and to perform additional analysis, Forrest said. Those conceptual ideas will be
presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on Nov. 11 and to the Vail
Town Council at its Nov. 12 work session. Then, following additional evaluation and
public comment, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to consider
a final alternative on Dec. 9, followed by consideration from the Vail Town Council on
Dec. 10.
For additional details on the public meetings, or for a copy of the GRFA analysis
preliminary report, contact Forrest at 479-2146.
# # #
OCT 16 '96 08:00AM ' P.1/1
Iff Eagle Valley Habitat for Humanlty
P.O. BcK 413 Vaii, GO 81658
(9M e27-4000 Fax (970) e27-5507
FOR INIMEDIATE RELEASE
October 15, 1996 Media Cvntacts .
Mchael Wasmez, 970-827-4009
Paul Witt, 970-845-5720
EAGT,E VALLEY HABTTAT FQR HUIVIAIVITX DEDTCATES FUOT HOME
.•r : '-T~-r ; •
' VA~,, Co~o. " Eagle V~Iey`_.I-~abitax for lYur~n,auity~is iavitirig aII Eagle County residents
, . ~
to its first Home Dedication on,Sah4rday, Orctober. 19: as the •Robeft'Y.opez family moves into
their newly conshucted house at 503 2ad Strect in Gypsum. The cerezmony is scheduled to take
pIace at ] 0 a.m. and will be folIowed by an open house and pancake breakfast
"This is a special time to celebrate the complction of momths of hard wozk and voluintea
Iabor," said Michaei Wasiorxez, president of Eag1e Valley Habitat for Humanity, "So many people in this communiiy have come together to address, in their own way, the issue of affordable,
reasouable housing ia Eagle County, and now we will all be able to see the fruits of their labors,"
Robert and.Sandra Lopez and their f,our children were selected last May, by, Eagle Valley.
• :R . ~ : , _ ' ~ : . : i • . : ..P
along with
Habitat for Humas~ity' as the firsf family to parficipate in the, pzogram. The family.
volunteers and supporters throughvut-Eagle-Cowaty,,have been working on the home in Gypsum
since December 1995 whaa the first-floor decicing was laid. Eagle Valley Habitat putchased.the •
' Gypsum project site in September of 1995 with a grant from the Colorado Associabion of ,
- Realtors' Hausing Qpportunity Fund (CARHOF) made througkt the Vail Boazd of Realtors. '
' Habitat for Humanity, an international organazation, works in par6nership with peopie ua
need to build and renovate decent, affordable housiuag. Houses are built by Iocal volunteers,
: using in-icind -and purchased materials and sldlled labor, with a contribution of "sweat equity"
labor from the future homeovvner. The houses aze sold tA.the homeowners with ao added pro£R
. ; ; . ; . . . . , •
and zero-interest loans from HabAtat
° "7us is a milestone for E'agle Valley Habitat for Humauity for the residents of Eagle
County," continued Wasmer. "We hope tlaat this is just the beginning of a long axxd beneficial
` partaership among all of us."
For more information on the House Dedication, please call 970-827-4009.