Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19 Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionAMENDED AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC). (45 min.) ITEM/TOPIC: Application to eliminate GRFA in the Town Code ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide preliminary input to the applicant and staff on whether the Town Council is receptive to reviewing alternatives to the current GRFA policy. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Department of Community Development has received an application for the elimination of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The primary concern of the applicant is the regulation of below grade floor area. However, the applicant is also interested in eliminating GRFA completely in the Town of Vail. The process for a proposed text amendment is that the Planning Commission would forward a recommendation to the Town Council and the Council would then need to vote on an ordinance that addresses this issue. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this application in a work session on October 14, 2002 .and was unanimously favorable to eliminating GRFA RECOMMENDATION:' Staff would recommend reviewing the GRFA policy to see if alternatives could be developed to improve the overall efficiency of the development review process and which ensures the appropriate massing of structures in the Town of Vail. ' 1. _ ITEM/TOPIC: Gymnastics Discussion. (30 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Request from VCBA regarding funding for Santa and Elves. (10.min.) Robb Chiles The Vail Chamber & Business Association would like to make a request for funding to supplement the costs involved in providing Santa & his Elves in Lionshead and Vail Village. Program will involve having a Santa and his Elves along with hot chocolate, cookies and music in Vail Village and Lionshead on Saturdays and Sundays during December. We are also planning on having Santa and his Elves at the four Christmas tree lightings in Lionshead, Meadow Drive, Covered Bridge, and Checkpoint Charlie. 3. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: A vuork session with council to discuss proposed changes to the Town of Vail Sign Code. Applicant/Appellant: Town of Vail Department of Community Development F:mcaster/agenda/worksession/2002/ 111902 ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No Action required. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Department of Community Development has been working on changes to the sign code with the Vail Chamber and Business Association. Staff has received input on a rough draft from merchants and the PEC. Staff would appreciate receiving input from the Council on the sign code prior to moving forward with revising the rough draft. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required at this time. 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of Development Review Fees. Russ Forrest (30 min.) John Gulick Greg Hall ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction on a "locals" discount for building fees and provide input on Public Works and Fire Department proposed fee changes. In addition, the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability is proposing an energy conservation program that could impact fees. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council has directed staff to increase building fees consistent with the 1997 UBC fee structure. The 1997 fee structure is utilized by the other jurisdictions in Eagle County and Summit County. The Town of Vail is 20%-35% less than other jurisdictions currently (Eagle, Gypsum, County) for building fees. The one issue that council asked staff to consider is how to discount permit costs for "locals". Several alternatives are offered below. The Town of Vail has already budgeted a 20% increase in building fees for the 2003 fiscal year. In addition, since staff last had a discussion with Council on fees, the Fire Department and Public Works Department reviewed their fee structures and determined that their fees did not reflect the cost of providing services. This memo also has recommended changes from the Fire and Public Works Departments. Building and Fire fees can be changed administratively while the Public Works Department fees are codified and must be changed by ordinance. Finally, Adam Palmer, Director for the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, would like to review an energy conservation program with Council which would create a fund for energy conservation measures from a flat fee on "larger homes" in Vail (over 5000 sq. ft.). Staff wanted to review all of these fee proposals so that the full impact of these changes could be evaluated. Staff is specifically asking for input on the following: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt proposed building, Fire, and Public Works Fees. 5. DRB (11/6)/PEC (11/11 **cancelled**) Report. (5 min.) 6. Information Update. (5 min.) 7. Matters from Mayor and Council. (5 min.) 8. Executive Session -Legal Negotiations (C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). (30 min.) 9. Adjournment. (4:25 P.M.) F:mcaster/agenda/worksession/2002/ 1 1 1 902 NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon .request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. F: mcaster/agenda/worksession/2002/ 1 1 1 902 J. ~)~ MEMORANDUM TO: Vai- Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 19, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest SUMMARY 8~ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Department of Community Development has received an application for the elimination of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The primary concern of the applicant is the regulation of below grade floor area. However, the applicant is also interested in eliminating GRFA completely. The process for a proposed text amendment is that the Planning Commission would forward a recommendation to the Town Council and the Council would then need to vote on an ordinance that addresses this issue. Attached is a staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding this issue. The purpose of this worksession is to review the existing GRFA regulations with the Town Council and then determine the Council's interest in this policy change before additional board, staff, and applicant time is expended. If Council is interested in pursuing a change to GRFA, staff would review more specifically the policy options identified in section IV of this memorandum. The PEC has requested that Council provide their initial input on this policy change prior to scheduling additional worksessions to discuss the issues identified in section III of this memorandum. II. PEC INPUT TO DATE The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this application in a worksession on October 14, 2002 and was unanimously favorable to eliminating GRFA. Specific issues that were discussed by the Planning and Environmental included: • Staff needs to evaluate site coverage to determine to what extent it needs to be reduced on large lots to prevent significantly larger home without creating non conforming properties. • Several members felt that slightly larger homes on larger lots might be appropriate. • PEC discussed whether to start this policy change with the following three zone districts; Single Family Residential, Primary Secondary Residential, and Two Family Residential Zone Districts. PEC wanted to know how many single family and duplex structures were in other zone districts (i.e. Cornice Building is in CC1). • If GRFA could not be eliminated, there was interest is possibly simplifying GRFA to eliminate all the credits. ~, TOWN OF VAIL ~i ,^ • The PEC asked for the Housing Authority's input on GRFA and how to continue to incentivize employee housing units. The Housing Authority has begun to discuss this issue. • DRB controls need to be evaluated to better control bulk and mass without GRFA. • There still may need to be a maximum floor area standards. III. OTHER RELATED ISSUES GRFA is referenced in numerous sections of the Town Code. Staff has scanned the code to determine other issues and implications by modifying or eliminating GRFA. Staff believes that these issues will have to be addressed in considering the elimination of GRFA. These issues are discussed below: • The major issue that needs to be evaluated is site coverage. In 1997 staff felt that site coverage could be reduced on lots over 20,000 square feet to keep the same bulk and mass. However, there has been a trend over the last five years to increasingly build one story homes. So staff would like to revaluate the interrelationship with GRFA and site coverage to ensure that that the Town would not create a large number of non conforming lots. Staff believes it is still possible to effectively control bulk and mass with site coverage, height limitations, setbacks, and design regulations. • GRFA is a measurement tool for parking and demolition projects. Should the measurement be kept but not used to limit mass and bulk? • Each zone district that accommodates residential floor area would potentially need to be changed with respect to GRFA and site coverage. • Parking is based on GRFA. Staff anticipates that parking would still need to be based on floor area for commercial development as it is today. • The Public Accommodation Zone District uses GRFA to limit commercial area and control the split of hotel rooms, dwelling units, and fractional fee units. • Approved development plans reference floor area. • The Lionshead Mixed Use Zone District references the ability to receive a 33% increase in floor areas and density if a building is remolded to comply with the Lionshead Master Plan. • Special Development Districts, General Use Zone District, and Housing Zone Districts reference development plans with GRFA limits. • Plat restrictions (Spraddle Creek) references GRFA. • The non conforming section (12-18-5) of the Town Code references GRFA. • The Employee Housing Unit section (12-13) references GRFA credits for EHUs and minimum and maximum GRFA for EHUs. • Separation requests reference GRFA. IV POLICY OPTIONS In 1996, staff was directed to review policy options for changing and/or eliminating GRFA. A "given" of this process was that homes could not be allowed to be increased significantly in bulk in mass. At that time staff recommended eliminating GRFA and reducing site coverage on lots over 15,000 square feet and creating additional design guidelines. The outcome of this policy review was the interior conversion amendment which allows homes built prior to 1997 to "fill in" vaulted space and crawl space. Now homes built since 1997 want the same ability to "fill in" areas. In 1997 the Town considered the following major policy options: A) Eliminate GRFA, reduce site coverage on larger lots, and improve design guidelines, B) Allow all interior conversions if it does not change the exterior of a building, C) Don't count below grade floor area towards the GRFA limit, D) Keep a simpler form of GRFA but eliminate credits (Similar to Eagle County), E) Create a volumetric control for bulk and mass (measure in cubic feet), and F) Don't change the GRFA regulations. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest I. SUMMARY The Department of Community Development has received an application for the elimination of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in certain .residential zone districts. This staff memorandum provides background and information regarding the GRFA regulations of the Town of Vail, identifies the process for amending the GRFA regulations, and identifies numerous issues with the possible elimination of GRFA. As this is a worksession, no staff recommendation is provided at this time. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Department of Community Development has received an application to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, of the Town Code. The purpose of this worksession is to identify critical issues and discussion items to further evaluate in this application. II1. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1969, enacted the Town of Vail's first comprehensive zoning regulations. These regulations included a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for residential and commercial development. There were no building height or site coverage regulations at this time. In 1973, the Town of Vail adopted comprehensive revisions to the Zoning Regulations, whereby a definition of GRFA was established. Building height, site coverage, and building bulk control regulations were added to multi-family and higher density zone districts. In 1976, revisions were again made to the Zoning Regulations, which included changes to the calculation of building height, minimum distance between buildings, and a graduated scale for the determination of allowable GRFA. In addition, a maximum GRFA of 4,000 sq. ft. was established for duplex structures. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1977, reduced allowable density in most residential zone districts. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1978, reduced allowable building height in the lower density residential zone districts, and reduced allowable density and GRFA in the multiple family zone districts. TOWN OF PAIL ~' The 1980's saw multiple changes to the GRFA requirements. In 1980, the definition of GRFA was modified and the garage credit was added. The definition of height was modified to the definition we use today and height was increased from 30 ft. to 33 ft. for sloping roofs. Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1982, again modified the definition of GRFA and added various credits for mechanical spaces, airlocks, and storage. In 1985, the "250 Ordinance" was adopted, allowed for additions of 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to homes at least five years old. In 1988, the "250 Ordinance" was amended to allow for additions of 250 sq. ft. for a complete demo/rebuild. In 1991, an proposed ordinance to repeal the "250 Ordinance" was denied. Oridnance 15, Series of .1991, modified the definition of GRFA, and consolidated the various credits to an additional 425 credit. In 1997, the Interior Conversion Ordinance was adopted, which allows units which have maxed out on allowable GRFA, to convert existing crawl spaces or attic space to GRFA. In 1998, the Interior Conversion Ordinance was expanded to include multiple-family structures. A similar proposal to eliminate GRFA was considered in 1996 and 1997, as a result of several requests from home owners to fill in vaulted spaces and crawl spaces. The Town of Vail hired Braun and Associates to analyze the GRFA regulations and evaluate other tools for controlling bulk and mass. Two staff memos and a report on GRFA are provided in Attachment A from the 1996 & 1997 GRFA review. At this time, staff recommended eliminating GRFA while reducing site coverage on large lots (over 20,000 sq. ft.) and providing the Design Review Board with improved criteria for reviewing the bulk and mass of residential properties. The conclusion of the Town Council was to allow for interior conversions for structures constructed prior to 1997. The interior conversion ordinance allows people to fill in crawl space and vaulted areas in home built prior to 1997. The intent was that this would reduce illegal construction. Staff has received riumerous applications for interior conversions since 1997. However, illegal construction and the creation of illegal floor area continues. In addition, owners vvith homes constructed after 1997 are asking for the same opportunity to fill in their vaulted and crawl spaces. Staff has provided a few sample calculations of how GRFA is calculated today: Zoning: Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 17,500 sq. ft. 15,000 x .25 = 3,750 25% of lot area of first 15,000 s . ft. 17,500 - 15,000 = 2,500 2,500 x .10 = 250 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. up to 30,000 s . ft. 3,750 + 250 = 4000 s . ft. Primary: .60 x 4000 = 2400 2400 + 425 = 2825 sq. ft. Primary side gets 60% of the GRFA plus a 425 mechanical credit Secondary: .4 x 4000 = 1600 1600 + 425 = 2025 s . ft. Secondary side gets 40% of the GRFA plus a 425 mechanical credit. Total: 2825 + 2025 = 4850 s . ft. Total GRFA for the entire site. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 11,400 sq, ft. 2 11,400 x .25 = 2850 25% of lot area of first 15,000 s . ft. Primary: 2850 + 425 = 3275 sq. ft. Primary side gets all of the GRFA plus a 425 mechanical credit Secondary: not permitted Not allowed a secondary unit as lot size is less than 14,000 sq. ft. Not eligible for second 425 credit. Total: 3275 s . ft. Total GRFA for the entire site. Zoning: Single Family Lot Size: 16,500 House originally constructed in 1982 12,500 x .25 = 3,125 25% of lot area of first 12,500 s . ft. 16,500 - 12,500 = 4,000 4,000 x .10 = 400 10% of lot area over 12,500 s : ft. 3,125 + 400 + 425 = 3,950 s . ft. GRFA plus 425 mechanical credit 3950 + 250 = 4,200 sq. ft. Total GRFA for the site plus the "250 bonus" IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall considerthe following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 3 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a text amendment. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND REGULATIONS Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12-3-7. Further, Section 12-3-76 states, in part, that, An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries maybe initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. Title 12, Zoning Regulations Section 12-15-1, Vail Town Code, states that the purpose of GRFA is: This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. The full text of Section 12-15, Vail Town Code, is provided in attachment C. Section 12-18, Vail Town Code, deals with nonconforming sites, uses, structures, and site improvements and states the following: 12-18-5: STRUCTURE AND SITE IMPROVEMENT.• Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements maybe enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: A. Lot And Structure Requirements: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy .between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to the addition. B. Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. C. Open Space And Landscaping: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for usable open space or landscaping and site development may be enlarged; provided, that the useable open space requirements applicable to such addition shall be fully satisfied, and provided that the percentage of the total site which is landscaped shall not be reduced below the minimum requirement. 5 D. Off Street Parking And Loading: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to the off street parking and loading requirements of this title maybe enlarged; provided, that the parking and loading requirements forsuch addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this title shall not be increased. (Ord. 8(1973) § 20.500) Currently an incentive for a private property owner to create a deed restricted employee housing unit is additional GRFA. Section 12-13-1, Vail Town Code, states a number of potential incentives for EHUs including GRFA: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in-kind services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. Town of Vail Land Use Plan The land use plan primarily quantifies housing types and quantities. Specific goals that may pertain to this amendment include: Goal 1.3: The quality of development should be maintain and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 5.3: Affordable housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. Goal 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands fora full range of housing Types. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A TEXT AMENDEMNT Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in Title 12, the Planning & Environmental Commission .and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations. 6 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or'granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VII. DISCUSSION .ISSUES The following discussion issues have been identified which staff believes are applicable to the proposal to eliminate GRFA as a development standard in certain zone districts: Is GRFA an effective control of bulk and mass of structures? The intent of GRFA, as stated in Section 12-15-1, Town Code, states, in part: This chapter is intended to control the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the Town. Along with height, site coverage, setbacks, and landscape area, GRFA controls the size of structures within the Town of Vail. It is a development standard which limits the size of a structure in comparison to the total lot area. In the 1996 and 1997 analysis of GRFA, staff found that GRFA did limit the size of home on lots over 15,000 square feet. On smaller lots, site coverage seemed to be the predominant controlling development parameter. Staff did find that site coverage could be reduced on larger lots to keep residential construction at the same basic size as today when used in conjunction with height and design regulations. Staff also concluded in 1997 that GRFA does not prevent blocky structures. The Design Guidelines do that when applied effectively. Someone could still build a box with a flat roof with GRFA if other regulations did not prevent that. Can GRFA be effectively applied and enforced? Without considering credits, GRFA is relatively simple. It is simply a ratio of lot area to floor area. What complicates this regulation is how credits have been changed over the years and the various nuances for calculating GRFA. For example: Homes built before 1997 can do interior conversion (fill in a vaulted space) but they can't if they were built after 1997. If a duplex zoned primary/secondary is currently a 50% split then whichever unit adds GRFA first becomes the primary unit and is entitled to 60% of the allowable GRFA. Homes built prior to 1982 did not receive credits for air locks, storage space, and mechanical space, while homes constructed between 1982 and 1991 received credits. If a home was built after 1991, then it receives a 425 credit which was intended to consolidate all the credits created in the 1982 GRFA amendment. However, a homeowner does not have to use the 425 credit for mechanical equipment. As a result, mechanical equipment is often placed in cravvls spaces, making it difficult to access in case of emergency. Allowable GRFA is based on when a property was built and it becomes very difficult to determine allowable GRFA for a structure. Staff, as a matter of practice, applies the current GRFA regulations and credits to a home when there is a need to calculate allowable and available GRFA. As a practical matter, applicants often construct spaces which are intended to be converted illegally after a Certificate of Occupancy is received and all inspections have been completed. Staff has seen individuals over-excavate properties and place styrofoam blocks in crawls spaces and cover those blocks with dirt. Staff has seen vaulted spaces constructed with electrical outlets 11 ft. in the air. These types of actions are not necessarily illegal but are discouraged and prevented when possible. Staff believes that GRFA is extremely difficult to enforce and difficult to understand and apply to applications. Should GRFA be eliminated in all zone districts? The Lionshead Zone Districts (1&2) have essentially phased out the importance of GRFA in controlling bulk and mass. GRFA has also been relaxed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, if GRFA were eliminated in the Public Accommodation (PA) District there could be some unintended consequences. For example the PA zone district states that "70% of the added GRFA shall be devoted to accommodation units or for fraction fee club units. Retail is limited to 10% of the total floor area in the PA zone district. Special Development Districts (SDD) that have been approved reference specific floor areas. The Hillside Residential Zone District has specific floor area ratios incorporated into the covanents for the subdivision. If GRFA were eliminated there would be no need to have a 60/40 split in the Primary/Secondary District. Without GRFA, this district would be identical to the Two Family Residential District. Staff would suggest that changes applied to the Single Family, Two Family Residential, and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts would be easier to evaluate in terms of their implications and could be a good starting point in revising the Town's Bulk and Mass standards. What are the resource costs/benefits of administrating GRFA? As staff is anticipating a 4-fold increase in development review applications in the next two years, we are evaluating how we can become more efficient. GRFA expends significant time for both the Planning Team and the Building Team to administer. It is difficult to understand, and it takes significant time to calculate. Both planning and building- inspection personnel are inundated with enforcement issues once a project is under construction. Eliminating GRFA would save time and improve staff efficiency. Staff could also stop reviewing what is occurring inside someone's home. This is an intrusive regulation. Staff responds to complaints on a regular basis that an illegal conversion is occurring. Inspecting such actions inside a house serves little public purpose in controlling the bulk and mass of a structure. Are there safety implications of GRFA? There is a significant economic incentive to utilize every square foot in Vail's real estate market. Illegal construction to create new floor area happens frequently. Sometimes the Town is able to identify and stop this activity and some times it does not. The result is often construction without a building permit. Therefore fire alarms, fire access, safe construction are issues that may not be addressed. The Vail Fire Department has included an email in Attachment C that outlines their position on GRFA. How will EHUs be incentivized? Currently additional floor area credit is provided for the construction of an Employee Housing Unit. If GRFA is eliminated, how could EHUs be incentivized? There is currently a 5% site coverage bonus for Type I EHUs constructed on lots under 14,000 square feet. Staff does not recommend an additional site coverage bonus on larger lots. However, EHUs could still be incentivized by allowing an additional deed restricted unit on a property. Furthermore, an additional incentive would be to allow that an EHU could be sold or leased. Currently, only lots under 14,000 square feet can have an EHU that can be sold separately. Another major issue is how to assess employee generation for commercial projects. If GRFA was eliminated, staff would still propose calculating employee generation using gross floor area for different uses in a commercial project. How would parking be calculated? Currently parking is based on floor area. If GRFA were eliminated, staff would propose using a gross floor area that is calculated by the building team or simply using a parking requirement for a unit type. In other words, a Two Family Residential unit may simply be required to have 2 parking spaces per unit. However, a commercial property may still need parking based on floor area. However, a gross floor area could be used for those calculations. Would eliminating GRFA create inequity issues? A political issue related to GRFA is that it is now a commodity. Home buyers purchase units based on the available GRFA. Neighbors rely on how much GRFA exists or does not exist on adjacent properties. Also home owners that have constructed homes with GRFA may consider it unfair that individuals building without GRFA have an unfair opportunity that they did not. What are the impacts to nonconforming lots? Many lots in Vail are nonconforming because they were subdivided under Eagle County jurisdiction and then subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail.. In West Vail certain lots received an additional 250 square foot GRFA bonus because they were nonconforming. If GRFA was eliminated, Vail would still have many lots that are still non conforming with respect to lot size, site coverage, density, etc. Therefore elimination of GRFA most likely would not generate additional development rights on existing non-conforming lots. ATTACHMENTS A. GRFA MEMOs From 1996 and 1997 B. GRFA and EHU sections of the Town Code. C. Email from Vail Fire Department 10 Attachment A GRFA MEMOs From 1996 and 1997 11 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 26, 1996 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review the existing gross residential floor area (GRFA) system and possible alternatives. In addition, staff will review input from two public meetings that occurred on October 30th and 31st along with input from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff is requesting that the Council consider whether any alternatives can be eliminated from the review process at this point so that further analysis of pros and cons can be focused on the most preferred alternatives. As a ground rule, the Town did commit to keeping the "no action" alternative (i.e., keep the existing GRFA system) in the analysis until a final recommendation is presented to PEC and the Town Council. II. BACKGROUND: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system -and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: ~) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; 2) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and 3) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? Attached is a copy of a background paper that Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared which addresses the following (See attachment 1): 1) Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system, 2) Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, 3) Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass, 4) History of GRFA in Vail, 5) Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and 6) Analysis of five alternatives. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31st, Tom Braun presented the findings in the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings. Many of those attending the meetings represented real estate firms, developers, and architectural firms. There was also representation (although fewer in number) from homeowners. III. PROCESS OVERVIEW: The process for this project is described below. The basic objective is to utilize the public input process and the background analysis to identify a wide variety of alternatives and compare them to the existing GRFA system. Then utilizing the issues/concerns as criteria, the PEC and Town Council will be asked to eliminate alternatives that should not be considered further (Step 3). Tom Braun and staff will then focus apro/con analysis (e.g., economic impacts, potential to increase or decrease the bulk and mass of structures, equity issues, investigate needed design standards, etc.) on the remaining alternatives and develop a recommended approach for consideration by the PEC and Town Council (Step 5). Step Descr~tion Critical Dates Step 1: Background Analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & October Step 2: Public Meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & 31 and alternatives. Step 3: Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11 (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings is to determine November 26 (Council) if any of the alternatives can be eliminated in order to narrow down the review process. ' Step 4: Complete analysis of pros & cons of alternative approaches. December Step 5: PEC and Town Council decide on a preferred alternative January 13 (PEC) January 14 (Council) Step 6: Take action to implement preferred action, if any. January/February Note: Depends on which alternative is chosen IV. SUMMARY FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS: A complete summary of the input from the two public meeting will be presented at the November 26th worksession (See attachment 2). The following are key points people tended to agree or disagree on. Major Areas of Agreement: * Some change to GRFA is needed. The appropriate level of change was debated at length. * One area of general agreement regarding the existing system was that the final product (size, scale, appearance) usually looks pretty good. " Better design standards for the Design Review Board are needed. However, these standards should not be so inflexible that they stifle creative design. Staff time is not an issue. However, time requirements for applicants to explain the GRFA system to clients is an issue. "` Many felt (not all) that interior changes (particularly for owner occupied homes) should only require a building permit and not count towards their GRFA allowance. Major Areas of Disagreement: There was significant disagreement on whether the GRFA allowance should be increased across the board. Some felt that to be competitive with down valley real estate markets we needed to increase GRFA allowances across the board. Others thought that homes in certain areas of Vail (Rockledge and Ptarmigan) were already too big. Some felt that relatively minor changes to the GRFA system could address their concerns, while others felt that GRFA needed to be eliminated and that site coverage, height, and design controls should be used to control mass and bulk. * Several people felt that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass. Many of the developers, designers, and real estate agents felt that site coverage, height, and the Design Review Board currently control bulk and mass, not GRFA. There were exceptions in that several architects felt that the GRFA system results in creative design solutions. V. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INPUT: The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) also had mixed feelings on the existing GRFA policy and possible alternatives. Four members felt that alternative three (eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. The PEC felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines are needed. One commissioner that supported alternative 3, felt that at least 2 architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA should continue. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4. Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that home owners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. There was also interest in one of the alternatives that the public identified of tailoring development standards to the site constraints on a lot. Breckenridge's performance- based development system was referred to as one method of dealing with mass and bulk on sites with varying site constraints. Another issue discussed at the worksession was whether homes in Vail are too large, too small, or generally appropriate for the site. The Commission generally felt that the market will drive where "trophy" homes are located. Therefore, there are certain areas of Town where large homes may be appropriate and other owner occupied areas of Town where they are not appropriate. The Commission was very sensitive to the need to keep families living in Vail and to try to accommodate needs to expand homes for owner occupied dwelling units. ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN Or VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OCTOBER 22, ] 996 I. I+JVALUATION Or VAIL'S GRrA 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 alter7latives to the existing GRFA system. Three major areas of concern identified by the Town. regarding the existing GRFA system that have prompted this evaluation are: 1) GRFA as a Means for Controlling Building 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 System 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) Re,~ elation 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 walls 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? While 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 identified by the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process: GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. I 1) Public involvemenris a key element o('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. IL BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a large role in determining a community's character, 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 community. 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 p--ovided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensity of use. The Stcuulni-~l Z.~iiiag Enabling Act granted local legislative bodies the authority 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, safety, 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 • Maintaining. a balance_between building scale-and the surrounding environment • Preserving a sense of place, scale and community character • Defining the proportions and character of public spaces and streets • Defining urban form and/or aural 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 summtu-izes 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 Coverage 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 Coverage -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 areas 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 restrictiocis typically vary by zoning district. Wlule a variety of methods are typically used to calculate building height, height is typically measured to the top of parapets 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 methodologies are used to regulate floor area of a building: GRFA 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 methods are used to determine what portions of a structure are calculated as floor area. Areas commonly excluded as floor a-•ea 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. Max1mL1171 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. Building 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 quv~tify 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 numher 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 typically most effective in combination with character 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-~1nd 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. 1) Site Coverage Maximtln1 allowable tide COVGrage in Vall's Slllgle-family, two falluly and primary/secondary districts is 20% (allowable site coverage is limited to 15% on loin 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 fool lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and. other improvements and on a ]0,000 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, cave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from the building. 2) Building Height Allowable building height in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' fa-' buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing a• finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires bU11Cllllgti t0 "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 lo[ 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 Unlt 1S alSO allowed. The Town's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an ac{dltlOnal 2SO sglrare feet GRFA per unit for sU~uctures 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 feel The purpose Of this gr~iduate 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 shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, . .Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning .". There are no guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. The zoning standards listed above are evaluated by the Planning Staff as a part of their review of proposed developments This evaluation occurs prior to review by the Design. Review 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 I V. IJVOLiJTION OI' VAIL'S GRFA SYSTCM 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 area 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 bLllldlnQ height or site coverage limitations. Ord. 8, ] 973 This was a comprehensive revision to the zoning code. A definition of Floor area, 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 otherhigher density 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 1711n1111L1n'1 dltitanCeS between Uuildings in various zone districts; established graduated scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximwl~ 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 huilding height in single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to 30'; reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and MDMF 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 squal-e feet of GRFA to homes that are at least five years old. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 6 ord. 36, 19ss 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, 1.991 Modified the definition of GRFA by counting the total square footage of all levels of a building i-icluding substantially enclosed decks; eliminating the credits for mechanical, storage, airlocks and solar rock storage; and adding an additional 425 square feet of GRFA per allowable unit in the single.-family, duplex and primary/secondary districts. Ord.. 17, 1991 Modified the definition of site coverage to include covered decks, stairways, etc, and overhangs greater than 4'. Ord. 17. 1994 Modified definition of GRFA to include bay windows and established provisions for up to 60°Io of allowable common area in multi-family buildings to be used as GRFA for Type III and IV 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 minimized 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 Oh' 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 methods used to regulate building bulk and mass. Town of -Breckenridge, _Colorado . - Breckenridge 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 following analysis pertains only to the Town's outlying residential areas. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. ~ Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations The Town does not limit the floor area of homes in outlying residential areas. • Site Coverage 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. • BUddl11C Heia~ilt 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. Ocher 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 Floot- area of single-fanuly 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 all 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 Height 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. Design 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 "mixed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overfill aesthetics of the convnunity. The review of floor arei 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 Density Residential Zone district {R-1S), which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations Floor area is limited by a graduate scale based on lot size. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 4,500 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 2S and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the cave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. Desi~~ Review The Town does implement a design review process that addresses al] aspects of building design and site planning. Other Considerations Two years ago the Town went tlu-ough a "monster home" debate. This debate concerned the demo of small Victorian homes and construction of larger homes. The issue was primarily over the potential 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 have.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 fortes. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRI/LIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 9 Deer Valley 12esort, 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 t0 establish maximum floor ~u-eas 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 pol-tion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area CalCUla[IOnS. Slte COVerilRe 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 essenti~illy establish a maximum site coverage area. Building 1-{eight Unless specified Otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat. within Deer Valley, building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid-way between the cave and --idge. Design Review Both Deer Valley and the City 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 t0 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 Coverage There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. Building Heim Building height is limited to two stories or up to three stories if additional setbacks are provided. Design 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. I3caver 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 County Coiruiuinity 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 linuted to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid-point between the ridge and gave 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'. Desig n 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 type of development. While the lack of floor area limits may be a factor GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. I 1 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 asecond-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 cortununities. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There at•e no floor area linutations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts. • Site Coverage 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 square feet. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted ?,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 County located outside of Town boundaries. V L 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 alternatives at-e not intended-to-be a finite 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 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 dle.existing system. Zoning Implications 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 built 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 Conceatual 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 hones. There would be no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. Objective of Alternative This approach is intended to allow flexibility 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 Implications 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 GRFA-limit 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 Conceptual Alternative #3 - Climination of GRFA/Addition of llesign 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 Altei7~ative 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. toning Implications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required pv-king and determining the 60%/40°Io split for primacy/secondary developments would be necessary. P.es once 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 • Elimnation of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maximize site coverage and building height, resulting in large box-like structures. • Eli-ninating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts on adjoining properties. • Site coverage would become the primaty limiting factor for controlling building size, with the elimination of GRFA the Town could potentially see very-large homes on larger lots because such 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. IS Alternative #4 -Eliminate Basement Space as GRFA Description of Alternative This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely below grade from calculation as GRFA. Objective of Altet~ative The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e. space below grade). Zonin~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 tl~e 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 hnplications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking-and detetlnining tl~e 60%/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 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 existing 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 all 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 permitted on a lot. • Have not identified any communities which utilitie such a system. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. l~ Attachment 2 Issues with Cu~~ent ~~~ ~ s Effectiveness of C~]R~',~ ns a Means for ~''ontrollYn~ Buiidin~ Sipe . • Mixed opinions as to whether GRFA is an effective bulk and mass control • +Gcncral agxccmcnt that CrREA is less effective than site coverage and building height 7~i~e R.equire~I to .~.drrainister Current System • .Kittle to no concern with staff time required to implement system, • Some cortcern with tin~.e required far applicant Au~ropriatenes of ~.e~u~atin~ Interior Space • Clear lack of consensus with "appropriateness" issue • Discussion lead to other issues, i.c. EHU's, "locals", etc. ethers Issues l . Is the sire of homes being built in Vail appropriate, arc there issues with all bulk and n~aass controls-and not just GRFA?? • process should also evaluate GRFA. relative to r~ulti- family • GRFA should not be a deterrent to constructing EHU's • llesign guidelines: are they effective, ca~z the process be more effective with better standards Relationship of CRFA to population, parking, other ginning standards • Address locals/keepin~ people in Vail vs. "trophy homes" ~arn~~~t~al ~l~err~ativ~ #1 - "~c~ ~-- ~.ction" I~esc~rig~l®n of Altern~.~lve - Leave t~-e exis#iz~g ~R.F~. system in place, no changes would be made to allowable GRFA ar the defxnitlor~ of GR]FA ~ron~ Cnn~ensus Very little suppoz-t far this alternative, fairly strong consensus that son~e action is needed « Q~.eSLian is whether system needs to he "tweaked" to be si~npli~ed and more "user friendly" or whether wholesale changes are necessary F'asitives • G~'A does control bulk acid ~~~.as~s ~- GRFA encourages design creativity Existing system is predictable, a ~.nown commodity Product (size of homes) has been goad • Establishes "value" of property Ne~~tiv~s • Does not cnntrnl Milk. and mass • G~.FA limits design creativity • C7R.F~4 doesn't acco~~nt far vaulted space • System is too complex, cumbersome • There must be a proble~a~ or we would~~'C be ~IeTC ~on~~~tu~l ~l~~rn~t~~~ #2 "Con~ers~on of ~~~~r~t~r S~a~e" Descrig.~,~-.n +~~. ,A~lternati~e • Allaw for additional GRFA in existing hon-~es that currently exceed allowable G~'A, provided there is no change to bulk and ~n.ass of home. Gr~ou~ Consensus • Fairly Strang consensus that. alternative is positive- step but does not go far enough, probably ndt a permanent solution ~'u~itives • Addresses biggest problem, allows flexibility with Hoar area while not changing buck and mass of building • Could encourage stability in local population • Gould promote safety by clin~.inating ".illegal" conversions • System will zez~.ain complex and cumbersarne, but end result will b~ worth t~~ouble lrTe~atives .. • System will remain carr~plex, cumbersome • Feople will design hanles for future conversion of space es • Should multi-family units have same opportunity? • How to deal with skylights, dormers, etc. • Need to address parking, other zoning issues P'assibly allow only far EHU's • Possibly allow only for homes in existence at tYme ordinance is adopted C~r~cet~.~i .~iter~~ti~e #3 - "E~ira~i~~ti~n ~f ~R~'A" I~escrip-tion ~ ~~lt~x~a~iy~ Eliminate CrRFA, adopt new design guidelines that SpCCiric:a.lly ddclress builclizig bulk a~xcl ~~~ass issues such as building forYxt, offMsets, scale, etc. ~rot~p ConsensY~s Fair amount of very cautious, highly qualified support far further consideration of this alternative p~51t1Y~S Other controls {site coverage, height) can adequately control bulk and mass Eliminating GR.FA will simplify system Negatives Nccd G~FA as part of total package fug' cvnurullin~; bilk. and mass Design review process is inconsistent, can net provide adequate 1eve1 of control • Design review standards will limit creativity • Elinli~~ati[~g GRFA wi11 alivw forlencourage large, non- descript boxes , • Potentially adverse impact. on neighborhoods, cc~n~.munity character • Will place increased responsibility, burden on DRB Iss~.cs iia.ve to study site coverage, height as part of eliminating GRFA, possibly est~.blish graduated scales C~ncer~tn~~ A~tern~t~~~ #4 - ~~liin~~e ~3~sen~~n~. S~~,ce ~.~ ~~'A" Description o~ ,~. eru.a ive • .Ar~aend the definition of G~FA to exclude interior space lc~cdted entirely below grdcle rrvii~ c:dlculativn as G~FA ~rou~ Consensus • Fairly strong consensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution Positives Could promote safety by eliminating "illegal" conversions and providing incentive for reasonably sized mechanical spaces makes sense -why calculate/regulate floor area that is not visible Negatives • Potential loopholes with defining "basement" • DueSU' ~ directly address bulk and mass issue • Potential for additional bulk and mass above grade • Could allow for. huge subterranean home • Ad~xlinistrative nightmare to deters 'ne what is below grade, adds to cumbersome nature of existing system Is_ sues • Must have "basement" clearly defined • ltleed to address parking, other zoning issues nce„~t~x~l .~~t~~~~~~~~ 5 cc~~li~u~~t~iC ~~~tr~l$' ~e~cri~tiou of Al~eru~ti~e • Utilize CAS to calculate, regulate volume of interior space Grnun Cau~en~us • could be most effective, accurate carttrol • Far to coYriplicated, ~lifl~ic~ult; burclengume on applicant ~tl~~x~ Aite~natives 1) Increase GRFA ratio 2) Iilc:rease ~RFA ratite fur smaller lots 3} Don't count GRFA used for EHtT's ~) Simplify definition, i.e. eIlIIIlllat~ all Cr~d.1tS cilll~ 1I14,T~dse ratio 5) Establish bulk and mass contxols based on site specXfic characteristics of lot, i, e. lot sire and shape, siQpe, vegetation, access, etc. and strengthen design guidelines f) Cuu1lt vaulted space at front end and increase ~RFA ~-atie 7) C'orn.bine proposed Alt_ #2. and AIt. #4 S) Establish parking requirement based an number of bedrooms 9) Eliminate GI~FA, expand design guidelines, height avcra~ing, evaluate site coverage and height limits, make changes available to per-ananent local residents only IUIHL F'.l~~f MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing GRFA regulations for single family, duplex; and primary/secondary type structures. This memo will describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under each alternative; and will identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each alternative. On March 10th, the PEC, in a 4-3 vote, recommended alternative 1 with several conditions. At the April 1st Council worksession, staff will review the alternatives along with the recommendations from the PEC and staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, staff would like to ask for Council's preferred alternative. Once Council decides on a preferred alternative staff will begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code revisions. II. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? The givens for this process include: A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and recommendations from the PEC and staff. B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass. C) This process. will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures). D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative. E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size. F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity. III. BACKGROUND In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which addressed the following "' Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system, * Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, " Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass, * History of GRFA in Vail, " Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and * Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vail's GRFA system. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings. The PEC reviewed this analysis on November 11, 1996. Four members felt that alternative three (eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. These members felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines would be needed. One commissioner that supported alternative three, felt that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA is needed. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4 (allow interior modifications and eliminate basement space in GRFA calculations, respectively). Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that homeowners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. Council reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority/preference) in more detail: Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should not significantly increase bulk and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. In addition, several Council members were interested in exploring how vaulted space could be better addressed in the Town's regulations. Attached is a revised analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative could be implemented and issues that would need to be considered prior to implementation. 2 IV. PROCESS OVERVIEW: The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2) analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are specific steps in the process. Phase I Identification of Alternatives 1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & October, 1996 2) Public meetings.to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & and alternatives. 31st, 1996 3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11 & (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26 determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996 Phase II Analyze how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of each alternative 4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January 1996/1997 5) PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997 6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997 7) Council worksession - March 11, 1997 8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 1st, 1997 if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession Phase III Legislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications) 8) Staff prepares language to modify Town Code April, 1997 9) PEC: worksession to consider code revisions Following dates to be determined 10) PEC: public hearing 11) ,Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to the existing GRFA regulations 12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance 13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance 3 V CURRENT IMPACT OF GRFA AND SITE COVERAGE: A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coveraae Gross Residential Floor Area and site coverage are tied to lot area through simple mathematical formulas. GRFA determines how much floor area can exist in a home and site coverage controls the size of the footprint of a building. Both are tools that control the size and mass of buildings, along with height restrictions and design guidelines. Very simply, the bigger the lot, the more GRFA and site coverage is allowed on the lot. B. GRFA In reference to GRFA, there is a graduated formula for controlling floor area. For example, the calculation for primary/secondary, duplex, and single-family type homes is the following: Max GRFA (Floor Area) _ .25 x lot area between -0 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft. .10 x lot area between 15,000 sq ft. and 30,000 sq. ft. 05 x lot area over 30,000 sq ft. Example: A 35,000 square foot lot would be entitled to 3.750 sq ft of GRFA for the 1st 15,000 square feet of lot area + 1.500 sq ft. of GRFA for the lot area between 15,000 and 30,000 square feet + 250 sq. ft. for the last 5,000 feet of lot area; for a total of 5.500 square feet of GRFA. Credits: Each allowable dwelling unit on a lot also receives 425 sq. ft. of additional square feet, up to 600 square feet for a garage, and potentially 500 sq. ft. for a Type II EHU (per lot). C. Site Coveraae Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total lot area. Therefore, the potential building footprint fora 35,000 sq. ft. lot is 7,000 square feet. D. Lot Areas in Vail Since lot area directly affects GRFA and site coverage, staff reviewed lot sizes in Vail. Staff reviewed 611 lots in sudivisions across the Town. Lot sizes range from several thousand square feet to over a 100,000 square feet. The average lot size in Vail is approximately 21,000 square feet based on lots that were reviewed. More than half the lot sizes in this survey are between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet. Table 1 below summarizes the frequency of lot sizes in the Town of Vail: 4 TABLE 1 LOT SIZES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL Lot Area (square feet) Percent Total Number in Range 0-5,000 2.93% 18 5,001-10,000 18.73% 115 10,001-15,000 25.24% 155 15,001-20,000 18.40% 113 20,001-25,000 12.54% 77 25,001-30,000 3.91 % 24 30,001-35,000 6.35% 39 35,001-40,000 3.26% 20 40,001 + 8.14% 50 Totals: 100% 611 E. Impact of GRFA and Site Coveraae Staff reviewed how GRFA and site coverage work together and what would happen if one or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for lots ranging from 8,000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 below displays the effect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark solid line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA" lines reflect the ran e of howbig a home could be if site coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The No GRFA (low) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1st floor and the massing above the 1st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). The No GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1st floor would be 80% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). Based on this review of GRFA and site coverage it appears that site coverage is the more limiting factor on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet. Once lot sizes exceed 20,000 square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If GRFA were eliminated, a significantly larger home could be constructed on the larger lots in Town. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot structure without GRFA. With GRFA, a building could only be as large as 7,800 square feet in size (with credits). Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in the Town of Vail. Figure 1 Floor Area Comparision 2s,ooo 20,000 ~ 15,000 N l0 m Q $ 10.000 5,000 VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: A. Alternative 1 -Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GRFA + Cred'ns - - - - • NO GRFA (Lov) • - - No GRFA (High) This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would allow existing homes to exceed their maximum allowable GRFA if the proposed modification had no changes to the exterior of the home. This alternative would address one of the major issues in this analysis of allowing homeowners to modify the interior of their home and utilize existing crawl spaces or vaulted areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are: 1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aO O N V O O O (`J lA f~ O] (`] N 1~ O N if (D cD O N ~ fD aD O r r r ~ r N N N N N M (") (7 C"~ V '~ K ~ <f u1 ~ V'1 u1 cD l.ot Area (sq ftJ 2) Staff recommends that a home have no remaining GRFA before doing interior modifications. In other words, if a property had 500 square feet of GRFA remaining, they would have to first build that additional floor area (on the outside of the existing structure) and then, at a later time, do an interior remodel to maximize livable area on the inside of the existing structure and the addition. 3) Equity is an issue with this alternative by only applying it to homes built before a certain date. Property owners of homes built in the future may desire to take advantage of the same opportunity to use vaulted and crawl spaces for livable area. B. Alternative 2- Do not include basement space as GRFA This alternative would amend the GRFA definition to exclude basement space. This alternative would address one aspect of the problem statement relating to intrusiveness and the public value of regulating the interior of a home. This alternative would allow a property owner to modify an interior basement space and exceed their GRFA allowance. Considerations related to this alternative include: 1) Many lots in Vail are steep and basements are very rarely completely underground and usually have awalk-out. The only practical way to apply this alternative would be to develop a calculation for determining what percent of a basement is below grade and is a true basement. 2) Calculating % area that can be defined as basement space would further complicate the GRFA system by increasing staff and applicant time to process an application. See page 3 of the Braun paper for a proposed definition of basement. 3) This alternative would result in bigger homes. By excluding basement space you can basically apply that GRFA above grade, which would increase the size of homes. C. Alternative 3-Eliminate GRFA This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to controlling bulk and mass for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary homes. In its place, site coverage would need to be reduced on large lots and stronger design guidelines would be required. This alternative would address the problem statement by eliminating the need for staff to regulate the floor area in the home. GRFA does not prevent a property owner from building a "block-like" structure. Stronger design guidelines are a better tool for controlling the appearance of buildings. However, it should be noted that GRFA does control the overall mass of a home, particularly on larger lots. Specific considerations related to alternative 3 include: 1) Site coverage would have to be modified for lots over 19,000 square feet to prevent significantly larger homes. Figure 2 demonstrates that site coverage can be graduated just like GRFA to control building sizes. The GRFA line is plotted and is identical to the line in Figure 1 above. The No GRFA lines reflect the potential building mass without GRFA and using a site coverage allowance of: 20% for lot area between 0-19,000 square feet 5% for lot area between 19,000-40,000 square feet 4% for lot area above 40;000 square feet Figure 2 Reduced Site Coverage i z,ooo t o,ooo 8,000 ~a a a` 0 6,000 0 LL 4~~0[) 2,000 Lot Area GRFA+Credits - _ - - -NO G RFA (Low) - ---- NO GRFA (High) 2) Modifying the site coverage as shown above is possible but there is a greater range for the possible size of homes by relying exclusively on site coverage and height to control building mass. However, this can be further controlled by stronger design guidelines. 3) New design guidelines and site coverage requirements would have to be in place before this alternative could be implemented. This may include new height restrictions to ensure off-sets in the roof line (i.e. like the 60/40 split in the Village) 4) Parking standards are. currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would have to be created. 5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the Design Review Board. Staff would recommend that a minimum of two members of the board be architects or landscape architects. 6) Many existing subdivisions (such as Spraddle Creek) have recorded maximum GRFA limits on the plat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that homes did not exceed those limits or significantly reduce development rights. 7) Eliminating GRFA could also eliminate the current floor area incentive for creating an EHU. This incentive could potentially be created using site coverage (credit) or some other incentive. 8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illegal conversions/remodels that occur without a building permit. D. No Action Taking no action on this project is also an alternative. It does not address any of the issues or concerns that have been raised in this process. It would maintain the exiting system of controlling GRFA, site coverage, height, and design. 8 O O O O O O O O O o 0 o v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO N (O N N N M c`am') ~ V N N N SummarX of Alternatives Table 2 c~~mm~rv of OltarnativPs Alternative Problem 1: ~.,, Problem 2: Problem 3: Ground rule: Ground rule: Key Issues: Effectiveness Intrusiveness Simplicity/ Do not increase Do not in controlling of TOV Staff & size hinder mass and regulating Applicant design bulk interior Time creativity space Alternative GRFA does This i Would be ve Could increase size unless it is applied Staff recommends A) Equity: People will still 1- Keep not control design but it ve alternat would provide ry complicated if only to homes built new design want to build in GRFA but does control greater applied to prior a certain date guidelines vaulted areas allow mass of homes flexibility to use new homes. and would apply that will and crawl interior on large lots. space inside a only to homes that provide better spaces in the changes to Would see home. have maxed out criteria for the future. exceed increase in size GRFA. DRB but does not hinder B)Should this GRFA limit if this alt. is design. be applied to applied to new new homes? homes Alternative Will increase Somewhat Would Would increase Same as Alt 1 can 2- Do not mass of addresses this increase building size by FA above. basically accomplish alt count building above issue by not complexity pushing GR . basement grade. regulating since base above grade. ? space basement ment area space would have to be calculated Alternative Site coverage, Does address Staff may Could increase Same as This 3-No design this issue. have to building size above alternatives GRFA guidelines, and TOV would review design depending on how effectiveness height controls only regulate criteria for site coverage is depends on could more building permit DRB. modified. It is changing site effectively issue inside a possible to control coverage, control exterior home. mass with site design coverage and .guidelines, and appearance. design controls the DRB's effectiveness in implementing the guidelines. Vail is 90% built out-is it too late to change? No Action GRFA does Would not No change to No change Same as Most people not control address this complexity or above like the way design but it problem staff time homes look in does control Vail mass of homes on large lots. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that involves looking at the original problems public input, Council direction, and requires trying to forecast how developers and home builders would react under different alternatives. During public meetings, the community said they generally feel good about how homes look and staff would very much agree with that in most cases. People generally feel that additional design guidelines are needed to improve consistency in the decision making of the DRB. In addition, people felt that something should be done to allow home owners to make reasonable modifications to the interior of their homes without changing the exterior. The majority of the people participating in the public meetings felt that GRFA should be eliminated and the Town should only regulate the exterior design and massing of a home. However, there were many that felt the existing system worked effectively and should not be changed at this late date in Vail's development. Staff does feel that improved design guidelines as identified on pages 5 and 6 of Tom Braun's attached paper would help improve consistency and equity within the decision making process for the Design Review Board. Staff strongly recommends that these types of changes need to be implemented regardless of which alternative is chosen. Staff feels that adequate flexibility can be provided in these types of guidelines so as to not hinder creative design, while providing better criteria for the Design Review Board. With respect to the alternatives, and which alternative most significantly addresses the problems identified in this project, staff feels that alternative 3, eliminate GRFA, has the greatest value (with several caveats): A) Additional work is needed to determine how to best modify site coverage to prevent homes from significantly increasing in size. Site coverage would have to be modified to ensure that homes would not significantly increase in size. B) Improved design guidelines (which might include new height restrictions) will be needed to also ensure that building mass does not significantly increase. Staff would assist DRB and review projects based on these criteria. C) DRB should be comprised of at least 2 design professionals (i,e, architect, landscape architect). D) Parking requirements will have to be further examined. E) Need to examine how to provide an incentive for creating employee housing units. Alternative 3 places an emphasis on controlling the exterior of a home, which has a public value, and moves the Town away from regulating the interior of a home. Alternative 1 would address many of the issues raised in this project. However, it is not logical to apply alternative 1 to future projects knowing that the interior spaces could be modified once a certificate of occupancy is issued. If alternative 1 were chosen as the preferred alternative, then staff would recommend it only apply to existing homes built before the date this regulation would go into effect. The major concern staff has with alternative 1 is that there is the issue of equity with homes that would be built in the future and owners wanting to fill in vaulted or crawl space after receiving a certificate of occupancy. 10 VIII PEC RECOMMENDATION: Table 3 summarizes the members of the PEC's stated preferences for each alternative. The numbers in Table 3 reflect how many PEC members voted for an alternative with respect to a preference. Table 3 PEC Preferences 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Unacceptable Preference Preference Preference Preference Alternative 1-Keep 3 2 2 GRFA & allow interior modifications. Alternative 2 -Don't 0 4 1 2 count basement space as GRFA Alternative 3- 4 1 2 Eliminate GRFA Alternative 4 1 2 No Action There was significant discussion regarding each of the alternatives in the context of choosing ;references; 3 members had alternative 1 as their first choice and 4 members choose alternative 3 as their first preference. Two members of the PEC felt that Alternatives 1 and 2 are unacceptable. The final motion, approved 4-3, was to recommend alternative 1 with the following conditions: * Apply to existing development and future development in order to address the equity issue. * A volumetric multiplier would need to be developed and be applied to future construction to prevent the creation of large vaulted spaces in new homes. * Don't include basement space that is completely below grade in GRFA calculations (This is basically Alternative 2). PEC acknowledged that Alternative 1 could achieve many of the aspects of Alternative 2 and staff would need to look at this issue more closely. The members of the Planning Commission were supportive of implementing improved design guideline regardless of what alternative was finally selected. I~~ II/ I~I~~~.111~ ~.~~O~II,~~(~IE~. ~f~1C. PLANf`JING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Russ Forest FROM: Tom Braun DATE: February 6, 1997 RE: Phase II of GRFA Analysis Attached you will find, the Phase II GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of Ehe three potential alternatives to the current GRFA system. These three alternatives, as selected by the Town Council, include 1) the conversion of interior space in homes that meet or exceed allowable GRFA, 2) the exclusion of basement space from calculation as GRFA, and 3) the elimination of GRFA. The following information 'is provided for each of these altematives: 1) Description of Alternative A brief description of the alternative is provided in this section. 2) Issues to be Addressed This section highlights some of the pertinent comments and considerations raised by the Council, Commission and public during previous discussions regarding GRFA. 3) Proposed LanQuaQe This section outlines how and where each alternative could be incorporated into the Town's zoning code and presents preliminary language for implementing the alternative. This should not be considered "final ordinance language". Rather, it is intended to provide the Council, Planning Commission and community with a better understanding of how each alternative could be implemented and additional issues that will need to be resolved during the implementation phase of this process. 4) Issues to Consider Outstanding issues and implications relative to each alternative are highlighted in this section. As we have discussed, the purpose of this phase in the GRFA Analysis is to further understand the issues and implications relative to each potential alternative. It is important to understand that it is not the intention of this phase to resolve all potential issues related to each alternative. Rather, this report identifies outstanding issues that would need to be addressed during the third and- final step in this process. This report will hopefully provide the PEC and Town Council with the information needed to identify a preferred alternative to the existing GRFA system. Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.8275797 201 Main Street. 2nd Floor Fax - 970.8275507 Post Office Box 776 Minturn. Colorado 81645 Alternative #1 -Interior Conversions 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 no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. This approach is intended to allow flexibility 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). Issues to be Addressed Alternative must provide assurances that modifications to homes do not increase building bulk and mass. Proposed Language This alternative would be implemented with the addition of a new chapter in the zoning code similar in the manner in which the 250 Ordinance has been structured. This chapter would have the following major sections: 1) Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces . within existing single-family and two-family structures that meet or exceed allowable GRFA by allowing for the conversion of interior spaces to,GRFA provided certain conditions and standards aze met. 2) Applicability • Any existing single-family residence or any existing dwelling unit in a structure containing no more than two dwelling units shall be eligible to add additional GRFA in excess of existing or allowable GRFA provided that the additional GRFA complies with the standards outlined in pazagraph 3 below. • Multi-family units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the provisions of this chapter. 3) Standards • Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall not add to or increase the building bulk and mass of the existing structure. Examples of exterior modifications which add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to any expansion of the existing exterior form of the structure, re- grading around a structure in a manner which exposes additional exterior walls, the expansion of existing roofs and the addition of roof dormers. Examples of exterior modifications which are not considered to add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window- wells. • Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards. • If the proposal involves the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking space to GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on-site parking spaces. Phase IUGRFA Analysis 4) Process • Application made to Department of Community Development to include applicable forms, fees, and existing and proposed floor plans. Design review application shall be required for all proposals involving modifications to exterior of buildings: • Community Department staff shall review application for compliance with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations. • Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be approved. Proposals deemed to not comply with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be denied. • Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with securing building permit prior to initiating construction of project. Issues to Consider The "mechanics" of implementing the interior conversion alternative are fairly straight forward. Outstanding issues pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For example, the language outlined above states that the purpose of this alternative is to "provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces within existin single-family and two-family structures". This begs the question of when is a home "existing". The following summarizes implications relative to the applicability of this alternative: Allow interior conversions for all homes The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for all homes is that new homes will comply with GRFA but will be designed to allow for the conversion of space in the future. For example, it would be relatively easy to design over-sized void spaces in basement levels and to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of which could then be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available to all homes. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they would otherwise have been if interior conversions were not permitted. If there is concern with the scenario outlined above, an alternative would be to require a waiting period (i.e. the five years required for the 250 ordinance) before new homes could apply for interior conversions. Having to wait a period of time could be a disincentive for people who would otherwise design a home to accommodate future interior conversions. However, this scenario does raise aquestion - if an interior conversion (and the potential impact of larger homes designed specifically to utilize this provision) is deemed to be acceptable after afive-year waiting period, why is it not acceptable after aone-year waiting period, or a one-month waiting period? Limit interior conversions to homes in existence a_t the time ordinance is adopted This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. Limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted eliminates any potential concern with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it fair to deny an owner who builds in the future the same opportunity available to other homeowners? Phase II/GRFA Analysis Alternative #2 -Basement Space Description of Alternative This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. Issues to be Addressed Develop a clearly stated definition of basement space, ensure that grades cannot be artificially modified to allow for space to be interpreted as basement. Proposed Language The definition of GRFA includes paragraph 18.04.130 A. which excludes certain areas from calculation as GRFA in buildings containing two or fewer units. In order to implement this alternative, this paragraph would be modified with the addition of the following: 5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at all points around the structure. While this language is probably the cleanest, most straight forward way to exclude basement space, is only excludes space that is 100% below grade. This alternative would not exclude basement space for walkout levels. An alternative for addressing walkout levels is the following: The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at all points around the structure. For any level which is partly above and partly below'grade, a calculation of the portion of the subject level which is below grade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the level which shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. This percentage shall be made by determining the total percentage of lineal exterior wall of the subject level which is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) which shall then be multiplied by the total floor area of the subject level, and the resulting total shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. Issues to Consider - • Excluding basement space from calculation as GRFA will create the opportunity for new "above grade" GRFA for new construction and for homes with basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA. • One of the goals of this process is to simplify the GRFA system. The second alternative which addresses walkout levels would add to the complexity of the existing system. Should the exclusion of basement space include walkout levels or be limited to basement space that is 100% below grade? Phase IUGRFA Analysis CALCULATION OF BASEMENT SPACE Building Cross-section Point where basement level is 6' below grade Basement Level Floor Plan CALCULATION 25' Point where basement level is 6' below grade 150` -LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL 50' -PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL 6' OR MORE BELOW GRADE 33°Io- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150') 1,250 (SQ. FT. BASEMENT LEVEL) X .33 = 412 SOUARE FEET EXCLUDED F--- 50' Alternative #3 -Eliminate GRFA 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. In order to prevent the development of large, non- descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standards for larger lots and new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two dwelling units. Issues to be Addressed Based on input from the community, the PEC and the Town Council, the major issues to address relative to the potential implementation of this alternative are: • Assurances/controls must be established to prevent the design and construction of large, non-descript box-like structures. • The DRB must be capable of interpreting and implementing any proposed modifications to the design guidelines. • Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript box-like structures must not stifle design creativity. Proposed Language This alternative would involve four major elements: 1) Initiate a "global search" of the zoning code to identify all references to GRFA pertaining to single-family, duplex and primary/secondary development. Examples of these references include: • the definition of GRFA for buildings containing two or fewer units, and • the reference to GRFA in the density section of single family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts. ,. 2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units: • A minimum of three (3) off street parking spaces shall be provided for each single family unit or for each dwelling unit within a duplex or primary/secondary structure. Parking requirements for Type II, III and IV EHU's shall be as per the EHU Ordinance. 3) New site coverage regulations to limit the site coverage (and size) of homes on large lots: Site coverage shall not exceed the total of: 1) 20% of the total site area for lots 25,000 square feet or less, plus 2) 10% of the total site area for any portion of a lot in excess of 25,000 square feet. With the exception of lots that exceed 30% slope, site coverage of 20% is currently permitted on all lots regardless of size. The proposal below would introduce a graduated scale similar to the exrstrng GRFA formula whereby allowable site coverage would decrease relative to the size of the lot. Refer to the accompanying chart for an analysis of how this new regulation varies from existing site coverage standards. 4) New design guidelines for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings which specifically address bulk and mass: Phase IUGRh'A Analysis Building Height, Bulk and Mass The size and scale of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes play an important role in defining the character of neighborhoods and the overall visual image of a community. Building height and site coverage regulations outlined in the Vail Zoning Code establish quantitative standards which limit the overall size, or bulk and mass of buildings. Notwithstanding these quantitative standards, site specific features such as vegetation and topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the perceived bulk and mass of a building. An underlying goal for the design of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes in Vail is to ensure that buildings convey a human scale and are sensitive to their site. Large, monumental buildings which in the determination of the DRB dominate their site and express excessive bulk and mass are not permitted. The following guidelines are designed to accomplish these goals by establishing parameters to ensure appropriate building bulk and mass. These guidelines apply to all single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes: Building Height Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two-story building mass. Three-story massing may be approved by the DRB, however, large expanses of continuous three-story building mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed 50% of the floor area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off-sets should be provided to reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the building. Building Form In lieu of large, monumental building mass, buildings should be designed as either a composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one primary building mass in conjunction with one or more secondary building forms. Rid elg_ines Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the characteristics of a site and the design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50-70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a predominantly one to two-story building mass. Building Scale A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human-scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: • Dormers • Decks and balconies • Roof overhangs • Fenestration Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more clearly expressed in graphic form. Phase IUGRFA Analysis Issues to Consider • In order to not limit architects design creativity, qualitative guidelines are proposed in lieu of quantitative standards. This alternative places a great deal of responsibility in the hands of the DRB, is the Board capable of this task? • Are design guidelines explicit enough and will they provide the DRB with the tools necessary to prevent "large, non-descript boxes"? • Is it necessary to reduce allowable site coverage for larger lots or will a reduction to allowable site coverage encourage taller. buildings? . • Are three parking spaces per unit adequate or is some other formula (i.e. based on number or bedrooms) necessary? • Is there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether or not changes are made to the GRFA system? Phase IUGRFA Analysis Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Building Form In lieu of large, monumental building mass, buildings should be designed as either a composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one primary building mass and one or more secondary building forms. Composition of building forms reduces building bulk and mass. These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. examples of prcmary anct secondary buieaang Jorms. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Building Height Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two-story building mass. Three-story massing may be approved by. the DRB, however, large expanses of continuous three- story building mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed 50% of the floor area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off-sets should be provided to reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the building. Three stories are appropriate because floor area of third level does not exceed SD% of level below. Variation in ridge line elevations, building offsets, use of dormers and decks reduce bulk and mass, building does not "read" as three stories. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Ridgelines Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the characteristics of a site and the design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50-70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Variations in roof ridgelines provide variety and breaks-up building mass created. by continuous ridgeline. Ridgelines greater than SO'-70' should be off- set at least 3'-4'. Change in ridge line elevation and orientation creates two distinct building forms and breaks up building mass. These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested U~at these exact sketches be used for GRI=A related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to n.,.:.,~,.:.. ^ predominantly o story building m Building mass. should be "benched" into the hillside. These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. Building steps with the natural contours of the site to maintain one-two story massing. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRID A Alternative Building Scale A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human-scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: •Dormers •Decks and balconies •Roof overhangs •Fenestration Building offsets, roofline and dormer all contribute to reduce the mass of this building. . Bay window and balcony reinforce Human-scale. These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. Other Issues Relative to GRFA Amendments 1. Amendments for EHU's and Permanent Residents Only During previous discussions comments were made to allow the provisions of these alternatives in conjunction with the development of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Vail.. These are Town Council policy decisions. The information outlined above addresses the technical aspects of each alternative. Limiting the applicability of these provisions to only EHU's and/or permanent residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process which was to: Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size Address the time required to administer the current system Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space ` Limiting the applicability of any GRFA amendment to either encourage EHU's or for the benefit of permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives. 2. Vaulted Space One recognized short-coming of GRFA is that it regulates floor area and not building volume and as a result GRFA does not effectively control building bulk and mass. Aspen is the only community that has been identified which addresses vaulted space with. floor area regulations. The Aspen code essentially applies a multiplier to the floor area of vaulted space. For example, floor area with 10' plate heights or less count at a ratio of one square foot for each one square foot. For interior areas with a plate height which exceeds 10°, the ratio increases by .OS feet for each foot over 10' up to a maximum ratio of two square feet for each one square foot (i.e. an interior space with 15' ceilings is calculated at a ratio of 1.25 square feet for each one square foot of floor area). Phase IUGRFA Analysis Attachment B GRFA and EHU sections of the Town Code. 12 12-15-1 CHAPTER 15 GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) SECTION: 12-15-1: Purpose 12-15-2: GRFA Requirements By Zone District 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, And Exclusions 12-15-4: Interior Conversions 12-15-5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) 12-15-2 12-15-1: PURPOSE: This Chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the Town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. (Ord. 13(1996) § 3) 12-15-2: GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DISTRICT: GRFA Credits GRFA (Added To Results Of Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage Application Of Percentage) HR 20% of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. + Norie Hillside Residential 5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. ft. SFR 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit Single-Family Residential 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. R 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit Two-Family Residential 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and. up to 30,000 sq. ft. + 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. PS 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit Primary/Secondary 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and Residential up to 30,000 sq. ft. + 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. (the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of GRFA on-site prior to application of credit) 799 Town of Vail 12-15-2 GRFA Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage. RC 25% of buildable lot area Residential Cluster LDMF 30% of buildable lot area Low Density Multiple- Family MDMF 35% of buildable lot area Medium Density Multiple- Family HDMF 60% of buildable lot area High Density Multiple- Family PA 80% of buildable lot area Public Accommodation CC1 80% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 1 CC2 80% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 2 CC3 30% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 3 ' CSC 40% of buildable lot area Commercial Service GRFA shall not exceed 50% of total Center building floor area on any site ABD 60% of buildable lot area Arterial Business HS None permitted Heavy Service LMU-1 Up to 250% of buildable lot area Lionshead Mixed Use 1 LMU-2 Up to 250% of buildable lot area Lionshead Mixed Use 2 A Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total Agricultural And Open Space OR None permitted Outdoor Recreation 12-15-2 GRFA Credits (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentaoe 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only None None None None None None None None None None None None 799 Town of Vail 12-15-2 GRFA Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage P None permitted None Parking GU Per PEC approval None General Use NAP None permitted None Natural Area Preservation SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None Ski Base/Recreation SDD Per underlying zoning or per None Special Development development plan approval by Council (Ord. 3(1999) § 8: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: A. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: 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, plas- ter and other similar' wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay win- dows, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawlspaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be includ- ed in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsection Al or A2 of this Section. 1. Single-Family, Two-Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures: Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as 12-15-3 GRFA Credits (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentage) GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square footage: a. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this Title. b. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') 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 calcu- lation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inch- es ~(30") apart. June 2000 Town of Vail 12-15-3 12-15-3 c. Crawlspaces accessible through (3) Common enclosed recreation an opening not greater than twelve facilities. (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling height, as mea- (4) Common heating, cooling or sured from .the surface of the earth to ventilation systems; solar rock the underside of structural floor mem- storage areas, or other mechani- bers of the floor/ceiling assembly cal systems. above. (5) Common closet and storage d. Roofed or covered deck, porch- areas, providing access to such es, terraces, patios or similar features areas is from common hallways or spaces with no more than three (3) only. exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (6) Meeting and convention facil- (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the ities. area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, (7) Office space, provided such provided the opening is contiguous space is used exclusively for the and fully open from floor to ceiling management and operation of with an allowance for a railing of up to on-site facilities. three feet (3') in height. (8) Floor area to be used in a 2. Multiple-Family Structures: Within Type III "employee housing ,unit buildings containing more than two (2) (EHU)" as defined and restricted allowable dwellings or accommodation by Chapter 13 of this Title. I: units, the following additional areas -~ shall be excluded from calculation as c. All or part of an air lock within an GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by accommodation or .dwelling unit not measuring the total square footage of exceeding a maximum of twenty five a building as set forth herein. Exclud- (25) square feet, providing such unit ed areas as set forth shall then be has direct access to the outdoors. deducted from the total square foot- age: d. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit a. Enclosed garages to accommo- shall only be counted at the lowest date on-site parking requirements. ~ level. b. All or part of the following spac- e. Attic space with a ceiling height es, provided such spaces are common of five feet (5') or less, as measured spaces: from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside (1) Common hallways, stairways, of the structural members of the roof elevator shafts and air locks. directly above. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with truss-type (2) Common lobby areas. members will be excluded from calcu- lation as GRFA, provided the trusses June 2000 Town of Vail 12-15-3 12-15-3 are spaced no greater than thirty inch- es (30") apart. f. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling height, as mea- sured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor mem- bers of the floor/ceiling assembly above. g. Roofed or covered decks, porch- es, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of 'not less than twenty five percent (25%) 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 (3') in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the posts. shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. B. Additional Calculation Provisions: 1. Walls: Interior walls .are included in GRFA calculations. For two-family and primary/secondary structures, com- mon party walls shall be considered exterior walls. 2. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are defined according to the following criteria: a. Distance Above Inside Floor Level: In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of thirty six inches (36") must be provided between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor sur- face shall not include steps necessary to meet building code egress require- ments.) The thirty six inch (36") mini- mum was chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot (8') ceiling height. b. Projection: No greenhouse win- dow may protrude more than eighteen inches (18") from the exterior .surface of the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building. c. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall be self- supporting and shall not require spe- cial framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches (4") beyond the window plane. d. Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44) square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an Town of V¢il June 2000 12-7 5-3 average sized room, is four feet (4') and the maximum width for a four foot (4') high self-supporting window is between six feet (6') and eight feet (8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would protrude no more than eighteen inches (18"), the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approxi- mately forty four (44) square feet. e. Quantity: Up to two (2) green- house windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two (2) windows. f. Site Coverage: Greenhouse win- dows do not count as site coverage. 3. Vaulted Spaces: Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations. 4. Garage Credit: a. Allowable garage area is award- ed on a "per space basis", with a maximum of two (2) spaces per allow- able unit. Each garage space shall be `designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area includ- ed in the garage credit shall be contig- uous to a vehicular space. b. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area shall be included as ga- rage credit. c. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be count- ed as GRFA. 12-15-3 5. Crawl And Attic Space: ( , a. Crawlspaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard mitiga- tion, or other similar engineering re- quirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5') may be exclud- ed from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the Administrator. b. If a roof structure is designed utilizing a nontruss system, and spac- es greater than five feet (5') in height result, these areas shall not be count- ed as GRFA if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; (2) The area shall have the mini- mum access required by the building code from the level below (6 .square foot opening ~'. maximum); (3) The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater than forty (40) pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved with decking; (4) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss-type" or similar structural system can- not be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and _ (5) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In an unusu- al situation, such as when a June 2000 Town of Vail 12-15-3 bearing ridge system is used, the staff will review the space. for compliance with this policy. 6. Primary/Secondary Units: a. The four hundred twenty five (425) square foot credit per unit shall be applied to each unit after the six- ty/forty (60/40) split has been calculat- ed (i.e., the secondary unit shall be limited to 40 percent of the total GRFA plus 425 square feet). b. On primary/secondary. and two- family lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot. (Ord. 6(2000) § 5: Ord. 3(1999) § 8: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-4: INTERIOR CONVERSIONS: A. Purpose: The interior conversion sec- tion of this chapter provides for flexi- bility and latitude with the use of inte- rior spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed the allow- able gross residential floor area (GRFA). This would be achieved by allowing for the conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spac- es, crawlspaces, and other interior spaces into floor area, provided the bulk and mass of the building is not increased. This provision is intended to accommodate existing homes where residents desire to expand the amount of usable space in the interior of a home. The town has also recog- nized that property owners have con- structed interior space without building permits. This provision is also intend- ed to reduce the occurrence of interior building activity without building per- mits and thereby further protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 12-15-4 B. Applicability: Single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi-family dwelling units that meet or exceed allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following criteria are satisfied: 1. Any existing dwelling unit shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA includ- ing such units located in a special development district; provided, that such GRFA complies with the stan- dards outlined herein. 2. For the purpose of this section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit that has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, and has received a certificate of occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to Au- gust 5, 1997, or has received final design review board approval prior to August 5, 1997. C. Standards: 1. No application to add floor area pursuant to this section shall be made until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an application is presently pending in conjunction with the appli- cation to add floor area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 2. Applications to add floor area pur- suant to this section shall be con- structed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in exis- tence prior to August 5, 1997. New structures or exterior additions to existing structures built after the effec- tive date hereof will not be eligible for interior conversions. Examples of how floor area can be increased under the Town of Vail February 2002 12-15-4 provision of this section include the conversion of existing basement or crawlspaces to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the building volume of the existing building, and the conversion of other existing interior spaces such as storage areas to GRFA. 3. Proposals for GRFA pursuant to this section may involve exterior modi- fications to existing buildings, howev- er, such modifications shall not in- crease the building bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior modifications which are con- sidered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building, regrading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical feet of ex- isting exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Notwithstanding the two (2) vertical foot limitation to re- grading around a building described above, additional regrading may be permitted in order to allow for egress from new interior spaces. The extent of such regrading shall be limited to providing adequate egress areas for 12-15-4 windows or doors as per the minimum necessary requirement for the adopt- ed building code. Examples of exterior modifications which are not consid- ered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, sky- lights, and window wells. Subject to design approval, dormers may be considered an exterior modification in conjunction with interior conversions permitted by this section. Prior to approval of proposed dormers or re- grading for windows or doors as de- scribed above, the staff or the design review board shall find that they do not add significantly to the bulk and mass of the building and are compati- ble with the overall scale, proportion, an`d design of the building. For the purpose of this section, "dormers" are defined as a vertical window project- ing from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable or shed roof, in which the total cumula- tive length of the dormer(s) does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer(s) pro- jects. Lenglh o} roo/ plane Length of dormer `'~ `_ - ) - ~` ti ~\..•~~_ ~~~ (i ~. +~ fir-r1~'~. / t, 1 ~ Cum ulotlve L. nplh of tlormer(~) m~.y not exceed 50 % of the length o! the roo! plane. i I February 2002 Town of Vail 12-15-4 4. Proposals for the utilization of inte- rior conversion GRFA pursuant to this section shall comply with all town zoning standards and applicable de- velopment standards. 5. Floor area within a garage that was originally approved through the garage space credit may not be converted to GRFA pursuant to this section. D. Process: Applications shall be made to the department of community devel- opment staff on forms provided by the department. Applications for interior conversions to single-family, two-fami- ly, primary/secondary or multi-family dwelling units located in a special development district (SDD) pursuant to this section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provi- sions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restric- tions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. If the prop- erty is owned in common (condomini- um association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, A/B parcels or C parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example; and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required. This .can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signa- ture on the application. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition com- plies with all provisions of the interior conversion section. Submittals shall include: 1. Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule. 12-15-5 2. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C of this title or as determined by the department of community develop- ment staff. Applicants need to submit as built floor plans of the structure so that staff can identify the existing building from any new additions that have occurred after the approval of this chapter. 3. Proposals deemed by the depart- ment of community development staff to be in compliance with this section and all applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall be approved by the department of community develop- ment or shall be forwarded to the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. Proposals deemed to not comply with this sec- tion or applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall.be denied. 4. Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this section, applicants shall pro- ceed with securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project. 5. Any decisions of the department of community development pursuant to this section may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provi- sions of section 12-3-3 of this title. (Ord. 31(2001) § 11 : Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 16(1998) § 1: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESI- DENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the February 2002 Town of Vail 12-15-5 upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provid- ed the criteria set forth in this section are met. This section does not assure each single-family or two-family dwell- ing unit located within the town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable town development stan- dards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross resi- dential floor area may be granted to existing single-family dwellings, exist- ing two-family and existing multifami- ly dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Up- grading of an existing dwelling unit under this section shall include addi- tions thereto or renovations thereof, but ademo/rebuild shall not be includ- ed as being eligible for additional gross residential floor area. B. Single-Family Dwellings And Two- Family Dwellings: A single-family or two:family dwelling unit shall be eligi- ble for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the single-family or two- family dwelling unit shall meet the following criteria: 12-15-5 1. Eligible Time Frame: Asingle-fami- ~r. ly or two-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November 30, 1995, or a completed design review board application for the original construction of said unit has been accepted by the department of community development by Novem- ber 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have passed from the date the single-family dwelling or two- /I~~ family dwelling unit was issued a cer- t .: tificate of occupancy (whether tempo- rary or final) or, iri the event a certifi- cate of occupancy was not required for use of the dwelling at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the dwelling. 2. Use Of Additional Ftoor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional gross residential floor area ~.. :. (GRFA) under this provision shall comply with all town zoning require- ments and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the planning and environmental commis- sion pursuant to chapter 17 of this title before an application is made in ac- cordance with this section. The appli- cant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning and environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided. j 3. Garage Conversions: If any propos- al provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless: a) either the conver- sion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces below the February 2002 Town of Vail 12-15-5 GRFA under this Code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area, if required, shall accompany the appli- cation under this Section, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. 5. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 10 of this Title due to any GRFA addi- tion pursuant to this Section shall be met by the applicant. 6. Conformity With Guidelines: All proposals under this Section shall be required to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. Asingle-family or~tvvo- family dwelling unit for which an addi- tion is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this Section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the exist- ing single-family or two-family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the design review guidelines. No tem- porary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all re- quired improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. 7. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single-family or two-family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per single- family dwelling or two-family dwelling, nor shall any application be. made for 12-15-5 additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been con- structed on the property, or an appli- cation is presently pending in conjunc- tion with the application for additional GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 8. One-Time Grant: Any single-family or two-family dwelling unit which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section and is demo/rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved. 9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any single-family or two-family dwelling unit which is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA. C. Multi-Family Dwellings: Any dwelling unit in a multi-family structure that meets allowable GRFA shall be eligi- ble for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any application of such additional GRFA must meet the following- crite- ria: 1. Eligible Time Frame: A multiple- family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA, pursuant to this Section, if it is in existence prior to November 30, 1995, or a completed Design Review Board application for .the original construction of said unit has been accepted by the Department of Community Development by No- vember 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have passed from the date the building was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether 799 Town of Vail 12-15-5 12-15-5 temporary or final), or, in the event a General maintenance and upkeep of ~. certificate of occupancy was not re- existing buildings and sites, including quired for use of the building at the the multi-family dwellings, landscaping time of completion, from the date of or site improvements (i.e., trash facili- original completion and occupancy of ties, berming to screen surface park- the building. ing, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: conformance to said design review Proposals for the utilization of the guidelines. No temporary certificate of additional GRFA under this provision occupancy shall be issued for any shall comply with all Town zoning expansion of GRFA pursuant to this requirements and applicable develop- Section until all required improve- ment standards. If a variance is re- ments to the multi-family dwelling site quired for a proposal, it. shall be ap- and building have been completed as proved by the Planning and Environ- required. mental Commission pursuant to Chap- ter 17 of this Title before an applica- 6. Condominium Association Submit- tion is made in accordance with this tal: An application for additional GRFA Section. The applicant must obtain a shall be made on behalf of each of the building permit within one year of final individual dwelling unit owners by the Planning and Environmental Commis- condominium association or similar sion approval or the approval for addi- governing body. tional GRFA shall be voided. 7. Applicability: The provisions of this 3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this Section if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said en- closed parking area. 4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Section shall be met by the appli- cant. 5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with the de- sign review guidelines as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. Existing prop- erties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi-family dwellings. No applica- tion for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allow- able GRFA has been constructed on the property. The use of additional GRFA by individual dwelling unit own- ers, pursuant to the additional GRFA provisions, is permitted only when one hundred percent (100%) of the owners in the structure are also proposing to utilize their additional GRFA as well. When exterior additions are proposed to amulti-family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be designed and 799 Town of Vail 12-15-5 12-15-5 developed in .context of the entire subsections 12-11-4C2 and C3 of this structure. Title. 8. Nontransferable To Demo/Rebuild: Any building which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursu- ant to this Section and is demo/re- build, shall be rebuilt without the addi- tional GRFA as previously approved. 9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple-family structure or dwelling unit which is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA. D. Procedure: 3. Compliance Determined: If the Department of Community Develop- ment staff determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: a. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exteri- or of a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Com- munity Development. 1. Application; Content: Application b. Applications for GRFA additions shall be made to the Department of involving exterior changes to a build- Community Development on forms ing shall be reviewed and approved by provided by the Department of Com- the Design Review Board in accor- munity Development, by the condo- dance with the provisions of this Sec- minium association or a similar gov- tion. erning body and shall include: 4. Compliance Required: If the De- a. A fee pursuant to -the current partment of Community Development schedule shall be required with the staff determines that the site for which application. additional GRFA is applied for pursu- ant to this Section does not comply b. Information and plans as set with minimum Town landscaping or forth and required by subsection site standards as provided herein, the 12-11-4C of this Title. applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such stan- c. Any other applicable information Bards before any such temporary or. required by the Department of Com- permanent .certificate of occupancy munity Development to satisfy the will be issued for the additional GRFA criteria outlined in this Section. added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant shall 2. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt submit appropriate plans and materi- of a completed application for addi- als indicating how the site will be tional GRFA, the Design Review brought into compliance with said Board shall set a date for a hearing in Town minimum standards, which accordance with subsection plans and materials shall be reviewed 12-11-4C2 of this Title. The hearing by and approved by the Department of shall be conducted in accordance with Community Development. Town of Vail 799 12-15-5 5. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of additional GRFA. (Ord. 16(1998) § 2: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-5 ,,-:-: (. 799 Town of Vail 12-13-1 CHAPTER 13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING SECTION: 12-13-1: Purpose 12-13-2: Applicability 12-1.3-3: General Requirements 12-13-4: Requirements By Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type 12-13-1: PURPOSE: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on ex- emplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working condi- tions. Availability and affordability of hous= ing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recog- nizes apermanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may in- clude, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in-kind services to owners and creators of employ- ee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and cre- ate lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers 12-13-3 and those seeking housing. (Ord. 6(2000) § 1) 12-13-2: APPLICABILITY: A. Chapter •Provisions In Addition: The requirements of this Chapter shall be in addition to the requirements set forth in each zone district where em- ployee housing units (EHU) are per- mitted by this Chapter and all other requirements of this Code. B. Controlling Provision: Where the pro- visions or requirements of this- Chap- ter conflict with the provisions or re- quirements set forth in any zone dis- trict or any other requirements of this Code, the provisions of this Chapter shall control. (Ord. 6(2000) § 1) 12-13-3: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: This Section provides general requirements which are applicable to EHUs. A. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limita- tions, Reporting Requirements -Types I, II, III, And V: 1. No employee housing unit which is governed by this Chapter shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. All employee housing units are required to be occupied and shall not sit empty or unoccupied. June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-3 2. For EHUs which are required to be leased, they shall only be leased to and occupied by tenants who are full- time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) con- secutive days. For the purposes of this Chapter, a full-time employee is one who works an average of a mini- mum of thirty (30) hours each week on a year-round basis. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates preva- lent for similar properties in the Town. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed five (5) consecutive months. 3. For an EHU which can be sold separately, the EHU must be occupied by the owner of the EHU as a perma- nent residence, except for Type III employee housing units, which may be occupied by any person meeting the employment requirements con- tained herein. For the purpose of this subsection, a "permanent residence" shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after a departure or absence there- from, .regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account: business pursuits, em- ployment, income sources, residence for income or other tax purposes; age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and real property, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty (30) days 12-13-3 prior to the transfer of a deed for an ~~ EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an application to the Depart- ment of Community Development documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria. 4. No later than February 1 of each _ year, the owner of each employee /` housing unit within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter shall submit two (2) copies of a sworn affidavit on a form to be obtained from the Depart- ment of Community Development, to the Department of Community Devel- opment setting forth evidence estab- lishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 5. The provisions set forth in this subsection A shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limita- tions, Reporting Requirements -Type IV: All Type IV employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and sub- June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-3 C 12-13-3 stance acceptable to the Town Man- D. Application Requirements: ager and Town Attorney. 1. Applicants for a conditional use Development Standards: permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall not be re- l. No property containing an EHU ~ quired to pay a conditional use permit shall exceed the maximum GRFA application fee or design review appli- permitted in this Title except as spe- cation fee. cifically provided herein. 2. EHU applications requiring a condi- 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. tional use permit are subject to review and approval by the Planning and 3. All surface parking shall be Environmental Commission as provid- screened by landscaping or berms as ed for in Chapter 16 of this Title. per Chapter 11 of this Title. 3. EHU applications which do not 4. Each EHU shall have its own en- require a conditional use permit shall trance. There shall be no interior ac- be reviewed by the Department of cess from any EHU to .any dwelling Community Development subject to a unit it may be attached to. design review application. 5. An EHU may be located in, or at- tached to, an existing garage (existing on or before April .18, 2000, and whether located in a required setback or not), provided that no existing park- ing required by this Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type I EHU which has five hundred (500) square feet or less of GRFA may be considered for physical separation from the primary unit, if it is constructed in conjunction with a two (2) car garage and is other- wise compatible with the surrounding properties, does not have an adverse impact on vegetation, and does not dominate the street. The Design Re- view Board shall review such requests for separation. 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom. 7. Occupancy of an employee housing unit shall be limited to the maximum of two (2) persons per bedroom. Town of V¢il 4. Applications for a Type II employee housing unit shall include the signa- tures of all owners of the property (i.e., both sides of a duplex) or there shall be a letter accompanying the application from all owners agreeing to the addition of an employee hous- ing unit. Applications will not be ac- cepted unless this provision is met. 5. Any existing legal nonconforming dwelling unit in the Town may be converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaining a condi- tional use permit. Dwelling units and lock-off units which exist as of the date hereof but which are noncon- forming with respect to density and GRFA may be converted to a con- forming EHU administratively by the Town,. as long as they otherwise com- ply with the development standards and parking requirements found here- in and comply with the building code requirements of the Town. Upon being June 2000 12-13-3 converted to an EHU per this Section, such dwelling units shall be consid- ered legally conforming EHUs and shall be governed by all requirements of this Chapter. E. Enforcement Provisions: All employee housing units governed by this Title shall be operated and maintained in accordance with this Title. Failure to do so may result in enforcement pro- . ceedings in a court of competent juris- diction and in accordance with Chap- ter 3 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 1) 12-13-3 ~. ~: ~ 1 June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-4 12-13-4 HU Zoning Districts Permitted By Right Or By Conditional Use Ownership/ Transference Additional GRFA' Additional Site Coverage/ Reduced Landscape Area Garage Credit/ Storage Requirement arking Minimum/ Maximum GRFA Of An EHU ensity Type IV Any dwelling unit may The EHU may Shall be n/a Shall be Per Chapter Shall be Shall be be designated and only be sold or determined by determined by 10 of this determined by determined deed restricted as a transferred zoning on zoning on Title as a zoning on by zoning Type IV employee separately. property. property. dwelling property. on property. housing unit, unless unit. already designated as an employee housing unit. Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall The EHU is n/a The EHU is not Per Chapter 1,200 sq. ft. Counts as Hillside Residential not be sold or not entitled to entitled to 10 of this maximum. second unit transferred additional additional garage Title as a on property. separately from GRFA. area credit. dwelling --- the unit it is unit. associated with. i. GRFA credits shall only be utilized in the employee housing unit and not other dwelling units on the property. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2) June 2000 Totu~z of Vail 12-13-4 12-13-4 HU Zoning Districts Permitted By Right Or By Conditional Use Ownership/ Transference Additional GRFA' Additional Site Coverage/ Reduced Landscape Area Garage CrediU Storage Requirement arking Minimum/ Maximum GRFA Of An EHU ensity Type III Permitted Use: The EHU may be Per Section n/a n/a Per Chapter A. Dwelling Unit Not Lionshead Mixed Use sold or 12-15-3 of this 10 of this Format: counted as 1 transferred Title, Type III Title. density. Lionshead Mixed Use separately. employee 300 sq. ft. 2 housing units minimum. are excluded 1,200 sq. ft. Conditional Use: from the maximum. Residential Cluster calculation of Low Density Muliiple- GRFA. B. Dormitory Family ~ Format: Medium Density Multiple-Family 200 sq. ft. High Density Multiple- minimum. Family 500 sq. ft. Public Accommodation maximum. Commercial Core 1 Commercial Core 2 Dormitory format Commercial Core 3 may consist of Commercial Service several bedrooms Center sharing common Arterial Business kitchen and bath- . Parking District ing facilities in a General Use variety of formats Ski Base/Recreation or arrangements, in which case may exceed the 500 sq. ft. maximum. June 2000 Tocucz of Vail 12=13-4 12-13-4 HU Zoning Districts Permitted By Right Or By Conditional Use Ownership/ Transference Additional GRFA' Additional Site Coverage/ Reduced Landscape Area Garage Credit/ Storage Requirement arking Minimum/ Maximum GRFA Of An EHU ensity Type II Conditional Use: The EHU shall The EHU is n/a Allowed 300 sq. Per Chapter 300 sq. ft. Allowed as Single-Family not be sold or entitled to an ft. of additional 10 of this minimum. third unit on Residential, transferred additional 500 garage area for Title as a 1,200 sq. ft. property. Two-Family separately. from sq. ft. GRFA the EHU. dwelling maximum. Does not Residential, the unit it is credit. unit. count as Primary/Secondary associated with. All units not density. Residential, constructed with a Agriculture and Open garage shall be Space required a minimum 75 sq. ft. of storage area in addition to normal closet space. This 75 sq. ft. shall be a credit for storage only. June 2000 Tow~t of Vail \\ 12-13-4 12-13-4: REQUIREMENTS BY EA~IPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU) TYPE: 12-13-4 HU Zoning Districts Permitted By Right Or By Conditional Use Ownership/ Transference Additional GRFA' Additional Site Coverage/ Reduced Landscape Area Garage Credit/ Storage Requirement arking Minimum/ Maximum GRFA Of An EHU ensity Type I Permitted Use: The EHU may be The EHU is Side Coverage: Allowed 300 sq. Per Chapter Per zone district. Counts as Primary/Secondary sold or trans- entitled to an The site is ft. of garage area 10 of this second unit Residential, ferred as additional 500 entitled to an per enclosed Title as a on property. Two-Family Residential separate unit on sq. ft. additional 5% of vehicle space at dwelling the property. site coverage for a maximum of 2 unit. (All with lots less than EHU. parking spaces 14,000 sq. ft.) (Previously (600 sq. ft.). required deed Landscaped restriction on both Area: All units not units to allow The site is constructed with a sale.) entitled to a garage shall be reduction of required a landscape area minimum 75 sq. by 5% (reduced ft. of storage area to 55% of site in addition to _ area) for EHU. normal closet space. This 75 sq. ft. shall be a credit for storage only. June 2000 Town of Vail Attahcment C Email from Vail Fire Department 13 With respect to Vail Fire & Emergency Services' position on GRFA, I make the following comments and observations: 1.GRFA has resulted in numerous situations in which we find fire alarm and fire sprinkler controls being installed in inaccessible locations, some of which pose a serious threat to fire fighter safety. The restrictions on a property owner's use of space within the exterior perimeter of the home tends to force the owner/contractor to look for locations to install fire alarm panels and fire sprinkler controls "out of the way" of what might be included in the allowable GRFA (habitable) space. Fire code requirements dictate fire alarm and fire sprinkles controls be "readably accessible" and sufficient space be provided for "repair and maintenance." Plans seldom show the head heigh has been reduced or that the "floor" where the equipment is located is 4 feet above the adjacent floor level. We have ordered the equipment relocated before a TCO can be granted. It is a life safety issue for our personnel and presents a clear and present danger to expect emergency personnel to crawl over hot water pipes, crawl between boilers and a concrete wall, or crawl over duct work. I have seen situations whereih the "solution" created a "confined space" as defined under OSHA. 2. We find mechanical equipment being installed in uninhabitable spaces (as defined under GRFA) in which either ceilings or floors have been altered. Like fire protection equipment, mechanical equipment must also be readily accessible with adequate clearance to perform service, and repair or replacement of parts. Mechanical equipment typically has a set of minimum clearances to the top, bottom, front, rear, and sides. 3. GRFA has had an effect of creating numerous instances of "concealed combustible" construction. While statistically, fires start in bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens and mechanical rooms, (in various order depending on local conditions and other factors), a fire in a concealed combustible space presents a much more difficult condition. The effect of limiting usable space within the exterior perimeter of the house has resulted in owners concealing what would normally be habitable space. These concealments often include dropped ceiling, enclosed air spaces above bathrooms and bedrooms, false walls, and many unprotected but concealed crawl spaces. The spaces present a significant risk in the event fire burns into or starts in these interstitial spaces. Afire inside a cold roof, inside a wall, or inside a concealed combustible space, increases the projected loss to the structure several fold. VFES has had to order, on several occasions, that the space be sheet rocked, provided with fire detection, and/or fire sprinklers be installed. These concealed spaces are not well addressed in the codes, Building or Fire codes, because the anticipated frequency is anticipated to be quite small. The imposition of GRFA has dramatically increased the size, frequency and potential severity due fire, by virtue of the need to enclose interior space to comply with the restrictions. Recommendation: Fire protection and mechanical equipment should not be included in GRFA calculations. The Building Dept and Fire Dept can help insure the allowance is not abused. Concealed spaces should be limited in number and size, and fire rated. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department, Public Works, and Fire Department DATE: November 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees I. Summary The Town Council has directed staff to increase building fees consistent with the 1997 UBC fee structure. The 1997 fee structure is utilized by the other jurisdictions in Eagle County and Summit County. The Town of Vail is currently 20%-35% less than other jurisdictions (Eagle, Gypsum, County) for building fees. The one issue that council asked staff to consider is how to discount permit costs for "locals." Several alternatives are offered below. In addition, since staff discussed fees with Council, the Fire and Public Works - Departments reviewed their fee structures and determined that their fees did not reflect the cost of providing services. Based on that review, both Departments are recommending changes to their fees. Building and Fire fees can be changed administratively, while the Public Works Department fees are codified and must be changed by ordinance. Finally, Adam Palmer; Director for the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability, would like to review an energy conservation program with Council which would create a fund for energy conservation measures from a flat fee on "larger homes" in Vail (over 5000 sq. ft.). Staff wanted to review all of these fee proposals so that the full impact of these changes could be evaluated. Staff is specifically asking for input on the following: • Preference on how to discount for locals • Input on proposed Public Works and Fire fees • Council input on Renewable Energy Mitigation Program Another consideration for a change in fees, is that there may be a 3-4 fold increase in development review actions. Staff is evaluating how to adequately staff for this increased demand for development review resources and application fees is one way to pay for that increased demand for resources. II. Rebate for Primary Home Owners Council asked whether a discount could be given to primary home owners doing work in Vail. A rebate or discount will reduce revenue and provide a subsidy to local developers and homeowners since the Town's total revenue for fees does not pay for the total cost of the service (Attachment 1). It should also be noted that local builders and owners receive considerably more staff time compared to other projects that have general contractors. However, the following are options given those considerations: • Options A: Provide a 20% discount on the valuation of residential building application for owner builders. Some may argue this is not equitable to have two fee schedules based on whether an owner is the builder. It also may encourage some owners to be the general contractor for a project without having the skills to do so. • Option B: (What we do today) When an owner is a also a builder, they can significantly reduce their cost. We take that reduction in cost into account when calculating building fees because it is based on the valuation of the improvements. • Option C: Provide a 20% discount on residential building application fees for homes where the resident has a valid drivers licenses with an address in Vail Colorado. This has the same equity issues as mentioned in option A. • Option D: Don't create a discount for locals and continue to implement option B. Staff recommends option D based on the fact that our current fee schedule is 20% - 30% less than those of Eagle, Gypsum, and Eagle County. III. Public Works Proposed Fees The Public Works Department would like to increase the Public Way Permit from the existing fee of $75.00 dollars to $150.00 dollars and increase the street cut bonds held from one year to two years. The last time the Public Way Permit fee was increased was in 1991. The new increase would take effect in 2003. A public way permit survey was done in March of 2002, which included eleven other entities within the State of Colorado. (Copy of Survey on file at the Public Work Department) A copy of the Survey is attached for you information (Attachment 2). Out of the eleven entities Aspen, Pitkin County, and Snowmass Village have more than twice the permit fees compared to Vail. Eagle County and Breckenridge fees are closely within the fee structure that Vail is considering and Avon is currently working on raising their permit fees. We have estimated the time involved to review, issue, and inspect the Public Way Permit. It's estimated to take 2'/ - 5'/z hours, with an average of 4 hours. A loaded hourly rate of $ 40 dollars an hour and the average cost for a permit is $ 160.00. The Town issues approximately 250 permits per year. However, due to franchise agreements we don't collect full cost on all permits. In 2001 we collected on 127 public way permits, 73 were Pubic Way Permits with the fee of $75.00 dollars a piece, 54 permits were Public Way UT which is Utility Companies at a fee of $ 50.00 dollars a piece. 2001 had a total collection of $8,175 dollars. IV Fire Proposed Fees The Fire Department currently has a minimum fee of $53 per sprinkler and fire alarm permit which increases from that flat fee based on valuation. The Fire Department is proposing a minimum fee of $250 per sprinkler and fire alarm permit that can increase based on valuation The specific fee schedule the Fire Department is proposing includes: A Minimum fee of $232 A valuation based fee for construction over $3750 at $233+2.7% of value A valuation based fee for construction over $50,000 at $233+ 11.7% of value The new fee structure reflects an hourly rate of $56 per hour and the average amount of time spent on a permit review. This would more accurately reflect the cost for this type of plan review. It would also generate enough revenue to pay for an additional fire prevention officer. IV. Proposal for Renewable Energy Program A final option to consider is whether you would like to create a energy conservation program in Vail similar to one that exists in Aspen. Adam Palmer from the Eagle Valley Association for Sustainability (EVAS) has attached a memorandum for your consideration (Attachment 3). This program as framed would be relatively easy to administer. V. Fiscal impacts of fee changes For the purposes of comparing the affect of above mentioned changes an example is referenced below. For the purposes of this example, a 5000 square foot home is being extensively remodeled. The valuation of the remodel is $500,000 and the valuation of the sprinkling system is $10,000. The general contractor provides the Town with valuation estimates. T pe Existin Fee Pro osed Fee Difference Buildin Fee $ 3,864 $ 5,328 $ 1,464 38% Recreation Fee $ 225 $ 225 $ - 0% Public Wa Fee $ 75 $ 150 $ 75 100% Fire S rinkler Fee $ 53 $ 503 $ 450 849% 'REMP Fee $ - $ - Total $ 4,217 $ 6,206 $ 1,989 47% Total with REMP Fee (if new construction) $ 4,217 $ 11,206 $ 6,989 166% A discount for locals would be based on the Building Fees in this example. In this example the difference is 38% because the fee percent difference between the 1991 and 1997 code increases as the valuation increases. Fora $10,000 remodel the percent difference between the current fees and the 1997 fee structure is only 24%. The REMP fee is a significant increase in fees. It should be noted that only 1-2 new homes may be constructed every year that might be impacted by this fee. VI. Next Steps Based on the input from the Town Council, staff would propose communicating all proposed changes to the development community and providing an opportunity (The month of December) for contractors, designers, and applications to communicate any concerns to the Town of Vail. If there are no significant concerns staff would propose implementing the new fees which would begin with an ordinance to change the Public Works Fees in January 2003. If the Town received input on the fees staff could share that with Council at the first Council meeting in January of 2003. Building and Fire Department fees could then administratively change on January 21, 2002. With respect to the Renewable Energy Program, the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability has indicated that they would host a public meeting in December and bring the input of that meeting back to the Council in January for your consideration of whether to adopt that proposal. Attachments 1) Background memorandum on fees. 2) Comparison of Public Works Fees. 3) Renewable Energy Program ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees Development Review Costs and Revenue Attached is the last analysis of development review fees that was completed in the Fall of 2001. The Town of Vail spends approximately $1.38 million to support the development review process. That includes indirect costs at $344,000 (heating, building, vehicles) and labor costs (Com Dev, PW, Fire) at $1,043,000. Total revenue from the development review fees are budgeted at $650,000. Potential Changes to Fees Over the last three years average planning application fees generated approximately $40,000 and Building related fees generated $780,000 for a grand total of $819,000. The major revenue for the development review process comes from building fees. The Town uses the 1991 Uniform Building Code fee schedule. All other jurisdictions in Eagle Count use the 1997 Uniform Building Code fee schedule which is 20% higher than the 1991 (Vail) fee schedule. Staff will be proposing to adopt the 1997 fee structure which should generate an additional $156,000 in an average year. The following is a cost and revenue summary of the development review process and an outline of potential changes with increases in planning fees and a proposed change to the building fee schedule. The final row describes what it-would take in terms of a change in fees to have a break even development review process. Year Description Cost Revenue Difference Building and Planning Fees 2001 1991-2001 $1,388,286 $819,563 -$568,723 Planning Fee increase approved Dec 2001/assumes 2002 4% increase due to labor cost $1,352,000 $919,000 -$433,000 1997 UBC Fee Schedule approved/assumes 4% 2003 increase due to labor cost $1,406,080 $1,075,000 -$331,080 Break Even: 37% increase building and planning fees 2004 over 2003 rates $1,462,323 $1,472,750 $10,427 Potential increase in rates from 2001 to 2004 80% It should be noted that the above volume of planning and building permits is anticipated to be significantly above average in the next 2-3 years. This building activity could generate an additional $500,000 in fees over a 3 year time period. Comparison to other Jurisdictions Other jurisdictions charge more for both planning and building fees such as Aspen; Breckenridge, Park City and Eagle County. Further increases in fees could be justified in so far as the fee is commensurate with the cost of providing the service. Cost/Revenue Com arison Jurisdiction Vail As en Breckenrid a Boulder Park Cit Eagle Count Po ulation 4,531 5,914 2,408 41,659 Planning Staff 6 6 6 13.75 8 8 Average # Planning A s 421 193 170 400 725 303 Total Planning Fees $ 39,153 $ 380,000 $ 734,086 $ 1,000,000 $ 140,000 $128,200.0 Permits/Staff $ 70 $ 32 $ 28 $ 29 $ 91 $ 38 Average os_ _ PP_- - $ 93 - --- $ _ 9 ---- 1'96. $ _ _ 4,318_ _ $ 2,500 $ 193 $ 423 , - '~- -- _- ~-- - ~ - 7 , 1 ~ - -- _ .. -- - - Building Staff - 4.5 7 4 -- 11 10 12 Average # Buildin A s 1367 307 1250 5000 770 2752 Total Building Fees $ 780,410 $ 1,522,343 $ 1,312,657 $ 2,400,000 $ 970,000 $2,535,000 Permits/Staff 304 44 313 455 77 229 Average Cost/A $ 570.89 $ 4,958.77 $ 1,050.13 $ 480.00 $ 1,259.74 $ 921.15 - -- i Total Fees $ 819,563 $ 1,902,343 $ 2,046,743 $- 3,400,000 $ 1,110,000 $2,663,200 Total Cost $ 1,388,286 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,762,500 $1,790,000 NET Revenue on Development Review $ 568,723 $ 402,343 796,743 $ 1,400,000 $ 652,500 $ 873,200 Rebate for Primary Home Owners Council also asked whether a discount could be given to primary home owners doing work in Vail. This could be done with a rebate where the Town would place a building permit fee in escrow a residential project if the homeowner was a primary owner. The Town could use verification like an EHU to prove that an owner lived in the residence for 5 (??) years and then rebate a percentage of the total fee back to the homeowner. The challenge is that the home owner would still need to front the money for the building permit and this may not be perceived as a significant benefit. ATTACHMENT 2 Russ Forrest Public Way Permits Survey.xls _~__ ._~_._~_r -,M ~~,~____~~_,_~__., ..,_.,._ .............. ~.__.,,_..._..,~~.~„~. Page 1 3/4/02 2002 Public Way /Right of Way Surveys Cost of Permit? Warranty Period for Street Cuts? Last time fees were raised or evaluated? Cit Phone Numbers Public Wa Permit Fee Warran Period Year Fee Raised Bond Amount As en 970.920.5080 Base $295.00 2 ears 2000 Pitkin County 970.920.5390 Base $250.00 2 years 2001 (Raised $15.00) Standard fee of $2000.00 automatic, additonal cut, more bond required Bond with eve bod includin Utilit Com . Steamboat 970.879.2060 Base $50.00 L.O.C n/a Standard fee of $2000.00 automatic, on oin $200.00 clean u de osit re wired Breckenridge 970.543.3175 Base $100.00 2 years 2001 Base on LF If no structure damage contractor may re west bond to be returned after 1 ear Avon 970.748.4100 Base $50.00 1 ear 1980 Minimium of $2000.00 dollars Grandjuction 970.244.1555 Base $60.00 1 year 100% of engineers estimate or era roved ermit $10,000.00 in a form acce table to ci Eagle County 970.328.3564 Base $150.00 2 years 1984 $2000.00 base w/additonal charges of $75.00 for R.O.W. $50.00 per lineal ft over 25 ft Gravel Roads Base amount of $250.00 Boulder 303.441.3266 $31.00 lus 2 ears Beaver Creek 970.718.9174 $0 Fees are combined with DRB fees. Beaver Creek Metro. Is lookin at char in for emits SnowMass 970.923.5524 Base on Priorty of road 2 year 2000 Depending on the size of the street cut Village $50 plus Hi - $500.00 up to a million dollar bond could be required. Med - $300.00 Low - $100.00 Vail 970.479.2198 Base $ 75.00 1 year Based on LF and SF of excavation $ 5.00 dollars for asphalUconcrete $ 2.00 dollars for R.O.W./ Landsca in ATTACHMENT 3. .... , - . w._,...,. _ -- ._ .__.~. .d.. .., ... --~a~ _ _ ~ .... _ ,_Russ Forrest - REMPvail2.doc ~_ _ __ _ _ ____ ,_, ~ ~ ,~, __,_,__~_ ___ , ~ Page 1 i REMP for Vail: A Local Solution to a Global Problem f THE PROBLEM: According to a study published by a United Nations panel of scientists, if current levels of COQemissions continue to enter the atmosphere, within 100 years Colorado could have the same climate that Chihuahua, Mexico has today. Obviously such a climate change would have disastrous effects on the ski industry and our local economy. A 4,000 square foot home in our area will, in the next 50 years, use 600,000 pounds of coal and 12 million cubic feet of natural gas, creating 2.5 million pounds of COZ, according to Holy Cross Energy, that will remain in the atmosphere for a century. A SOLUTION: To mitigate these impacts, Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability (EVAS) is proposing the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) designed to reduce pollutants and emissions that threaten our quality of life and priceless natural ecosystem. EVAS would administer REMP, which would assess a _~. _ __ E ~- s _; i ' r^~;. F f " a ~_i ~ i ,, ~ ~~ _ f ~ ~ '; „~ y ~ cK ~ E ~'6ac~7'+rrv one-time fee issued as part of the permit process. New homes 5000 square feet or larger would be charged $5000, and proposed fees for snowmelt and spas/pools are based on the energy it will use in 20 years in our climate (allowable exemptions for fees are included). REMP fees can be exempted by achieving a LEED or BuiltGreen certification once the project is completed, or by supplying 50% of the necessary energy needed with on-site renewable power. HOW WILL FUNDS BE USED? The funds generated by REMP will be placed into an escrow account and used to fund renewable power/energy efficiency upgrades and incentives for projects and residents within the Town of Vail. A REMP steering committee consisting of 2 TOV council members, 2 TOV ComDev staff, a representative from EVAS, and 2 TOV residents will determine which projects are to be funded. Randy Udall of CORE has funded numerous projects with a similar program, including significant solar rebates, lighting retrofits, energy efficient upgrades on municipal projects, a car sharing program, energy efficient appliance rebates, and solar hot water systems placed into employee housing projects. Thus far the program has received little negative response and has received widespread support and positive national recognition. REMP is not a mandate, would cost TOV little or nothing, and achieves tangible community benefits. It would mark Vail as an innovator on the forefront of protecting the natural environment on which all of f Colorado depends. ~'VRS ~~ akY AtlWMC f~~.xistolnieNty ~, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, November 6, 2002 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION /LUNCH -Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Clark Brittain Bill Pierce Hans Woldrich Margaret Rogers SITE VISITS 1. McCue residence - 4269 Nugget Lane 2. Boothfalls Townhomes - 3094 Boothfalls Road 3. Gorsuch residence - 1193 Cabin Circle 4. Gonzalez residence - 2339 Chamonix Lane 5. Marriott - 715 W. Lionshead Circle 6. Mezzaluna Restaurant - 660 West Lionshead Place 7. Ski Base - 610 West Lionshead Circle 8. Vail Village &Lionshead ticket kiosks 9. Charm School Boutique - 183 Gore Creek Drive 10. Gateway Building - 12 Vail Road Driver: Warren 12:00 pm 1:30 pm PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Gateway LLC DR602-0256 Matt Final review of proposed new signage 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Vail Gateway LLC MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the existing etched sign be built-out with efface or edged to conceal the gaps and continue down the face under the soffit and that the color be beige to match the building ID sign. 2. Vail Village and Lionshead lift ticket kiosks DRB02-0313 Final review of proposed lift ticket kiosks Warren 3:00 pm 600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing and 1 Vail Place Condos/Block 5C, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Cynthia Steitz MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 ~. ' 1 TOWN OF VAIL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT Charles Acevedo APPROVED AS SUBMITTED IN BROWN & TAN 3. Boothfalls Townhomes DRB02-0287 Allison Final review of proposed parking lot and exterior improvements 3094 Boothfalls Road/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12 Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Assoc., represented by Steve Prawdzik MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. ' That an additional 12 trees be planted along the east side of the property, subject to staff review with the neighbor and applicant, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the existing trees from the toe of the lot will be replaced if removed. 3. That there be no parking pole lights on the southeast side of the parking lots. 4. Marriott DR602-0371 Warren Final review of proposed sign 715 W Lionshead Circle/Lots C&D, Morcus Subdivision Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 3-1 (Rogers opposed) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That prior to supergraphic erection, the staff shall determine the legality of the image as a logo for the hotel. 5. Mezzaluna Restaurant DR602-0373 Matt Final review of proposed signs 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing Applicant: Mezzaluna Restaurant MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Clark Brittain VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the awning sign is ok, but the north elevation will have two possible locations with the first being the parapet over the main door and the second being over the restaurant doorway. 6. Mezzaluna Restaurant DR602-0374 Matt Final review of proposed exterior alterations, tree removal and landscaping change 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1St Filing Applicant: Mezzaluna Restaurant & Lionsquare Lodge MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED DECK WITH 1 CONDITION: That all beams square off and the soffit and materials match existing. MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 20, 2002 -TREE REMOVAL 2 7. McCue Residence DR602-0293 Warren Final review of proposed door and window additions 4269 Nugget Lane/Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Resubdivision Lot 10 and 11 Applicant: Robert and Harriet McCue, represented by Rich Brown of Brown-Wolin Construction Inc. MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 CONSENT APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: 1. That the building be repainted in its entirety. 2. That the trim and details of the proposed windows and doors match the existing. 3. That no dirt be deposited on the hill at the rear of the structure leading to Gore Creek. 4. That the tree on the northwest corner remain, and to be protected from the regrading which is proposed, a retaining wall should be utilized to hold soil against the roots, if necessary. 5. That the retaining wall utilized at the rear of the structure to provide a larger patio surface, must comply with all Code requirements for setbacks, engineering and floodplain and it must be approved by staff. 8. Charm School Boutique DRB02-0379 Warren Final review of proposed sign relocation 183 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing Applicant: -Carla Lewis, Sign on Design MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 20, 2002 -with the suggestion that the Art Gallery and Charm School sign develop a signage program to be similar and that the lighting be recessed. 9. Ski Base DRB02-0380 & DR602-0381 Warren Final review of proposed window trim & sign relocation 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3~d Filing Applicant: Ski Base, Inc. MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Margaret Rogers VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the trim be on the entire store front and the sign be reduced to meet Code requirements for the sign size. 10. Gonzalez residence DRB02-0383 Allison Final review of proposed re-paint 2339 Chamonix Lane/Lot 11, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Carlos Gonzalez MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That the repainted colors be "Sand Dune" on the body with "Bush Green" trim, as proposed by the applicant. 2. That the applicant must do a mock-up for staff approval, prior to painting the structure. 11. Gorsuch residence DR602-0370 Bill/Allison Conceptual review of proposed addition and remodel 1193 Cabin Circle/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 8th Filing Applicant: David and Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE Staff Approvals Cope/Wigton/Holm residence DRB02-0339 Re=roof 2932 Bellflower Drive/Lot 7, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Peter Cope & Ken Wigton Kaufman residence DRB02-0345 Re-paint and replace exterior light fixtures 1518 Spring Hill Lane/Lot 16, Block 3, Vail Valley 1St Filing Applicant: Andrew & Lynn Kaufman Snowstorm LLC DRB02-0368 Stair addition to deck 2009 Sunburst Drive/Lot 15, Vail Valley 3rd Filing Applicant: Snowstorm LLC Zuckerman residence DRB02-0377 Enclose deck 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Budd Zuckerman Bill Warren Matt Warren Gore Range Mountain Works DR602-0376 Allison Window addition Bell Tower Building, 201 Gore Creek Drive/Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Wilhelmsen LLC Interlochen Condos DR602-0382 Rebuild decks 2958 S. Frontage Road/Lot 4, Block 5, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Interlochen Home Owners Association Gateway Building DR602-0389 Window addition 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Vail Gateway LLC Arrigoni residence DRB02-0384 Balcony and deck addition 2475 Garmish Drive/Lots 5&6, Block H, Sunlight North Applicant: Balz Arrigoni Matt Allison Matt 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. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 4