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