Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1014 PEC• R N • h f0 O1 in i N ' J d m .. pWCNty U mmj » ro. -ago �3 u>gsw—$ g -dC mEE m� �$ `� tcY�e m °EL 'c� 6m wm jow ®� mu s�s�c`m an: co" roW $ paln 0q ^� � C7 rnY C m -� °NIN. 'vltJOw'1u4°z �n � f1. (O W'b' CmG hnm $ mCL r cs0 .p . nm �t� plm Q �m ^ pppp �mW Lg ®CSdmC mC.0 G`3. W aCO tJ �6 VMo2z¢ZC9 e ms d d 4 m m �LC 'o Z m `° Li W;° (ylW �' apr�oA�c Si ° m 8-; :Gm p n n. 'a"�dl c e�tl_pp .,..cam (m/� :Q ®p W'� �p c`p �y `�' 'o c li. m Cam-• W -"Z�1 p�Q,� m CA-'O C ma° Mc Z:.E }c �.:�.�a�m osErF�1yCX,j,ocvm,Yc u� TOW �VoUt am� ,vo° �i` o mm oc -a °ocm�$ m--E m >._ mg }x� gmrn� 'loW �m m _y�.. 'Q my�'�YQw 4m G T t �. n ._ O � � � ^ � � T = � m &6 O £ Zw `�� ^ o>mc -mro m �Q�UmE '�y.� EW�s�,��s 25 a'n � �q%f cm` � '�L�„<jo~o'WL�i"�i�NOlmm�'c °Vlti FLU' .�cW2'"y2 Nfu�%S`o wo " qq. o_ ai�pOmmOppmEmm� .�_n�S��y"'�`�CUpi��coW>''[ >Wei p'YroYcmn �nSmpEpQaU CG W W > m t Va's o.Wpu2m�¢W a2c a ¢UopL.cm3O.ui - �bR��mEoLL =W -°gkno om c� ®� m> g ❑ ZSE j$&mg Nm E a N0 $ ©mapWtn ,ymmy ci N cmi$�v U$ p- pmm�a7 m ,3 7 < ^p GAD® SIJ C Vl U mU Y y W� ,p0 'r D F m5 aE t�I- °'�o'm ®_ m <qd o�Emc,nm mcny.. do Rv o�c`o Imo• of cpu� vU am g� s— CCgpg a o�$ ®Cp`.C«p ®qmj Ov Lj' m oFa O cM CL_ I.Y UQFj3 c $mom $ te a mm a�E o3S_LLT5 oc s N��Cd m�;7i7Q yC�!�ZA mm ®1� lot o Z`Np o�iq.l �.' m tVpi�N '65 (y 22 �� 5'a ac m „m 6^+ t6 C"�i�j S3 m �i' EEN mk �yC Ca CL N -L m y�F t ®n6 y) � m 4i m 0 7 3�a i 912.824 a $r <=�o6E <a a c)`om a m- �m._ >o0. in sN^ OIL 1� me aoac Ot C -GW C �Q g �CaC (/}C* 70 H. mm F1Q TC LL! ` �=Ro cm m a? m ..o¢Nc I- a ;9 C 'c § d p L-p E - mo m$ p o w m `�g$ � c£ o 2` a IL p N m-2 m. ap pC��gc Ci sr —o- mCCO o m�, � LL U } E C`tJ g m R` E m m$ C m 3 di �Zi m E'c'cN9 c m ^ ooppfll E' #. <m WOm9 -� QO �a m� .-- m�VpW•m '�^O mm0. OU �� ���i�m Wccv c^:m�m >C7 1tl�a a"o�mp�¢m Le c 5 m. �£ro`A oU�mcmm $ �ltl, ®� y�o �'R O.um F- U�mto Wm UC ssGm O— CG90om C ®7p L rp 2yN o �Oatn a� E 51 Eon® mL—S m� F- Ylil ^07 aU...l�a2 CLlQWO dd dUr3ml -o��a a ^f�i b'om 4 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the.Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of �/ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the 4o P 9 p Town of Vail on October 14, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Vail's Front Door' project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3`d Filing within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 059'22 "W, 115.47 feet; (2) S81 141'30 "W, 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 018'30 "W, 266.90 feet; thence N79 128'56"E, 939.41 feet; thence S11 °28'38 °E, 91.78 feet; thence S40 101'19 "W, 490.77 feet; thence S77 000'32 "W, 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 1150'53" and a chord that bears N65 °08'56 "W, 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson *tL TOWNV 1 A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -88 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3, whence the northwest corner of Lot 14 Vail Valley Third Filing bears S07 042'53 "E, 474.77 feet and whence the northeast corner of Lot 16 of said Vail Valley Third Filing bears S26 °20'09 "E, 698.51 feet; thence N56 001'08 "E, 921.55 feet to a point on the south ROW (right -of -way) line of Colorado State Highway No. 1 -70, said point being the true point of beginning, thence N73 °43'36 "E, along said south ROW line 75.00 feet; thence S16 °16'24 "E, 25.00 feet; thence S73 °43'36 "W, 75.00 feet; thence N16 °16'24 "W, 25.00 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 0.04 acres more or less. Applicant_ Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 56, Vail Village 1 sc Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther A request for final approval of a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George RutheriWarren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive, Lot 4, Block 6. Vail Intermountain. 0 0 0 Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell 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: George Ruther 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2355, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 27, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, October 14, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visit MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt (left early) 1. Zuckerman residence - 2943 Bellflower Drive 2, Ice Rink at the Vail Goff Course — 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Public Utility at the Vail Golf Course — 1778 Vail Valley Drive 4. Outdoor Recreation zoned properties 5. Sonnenalp Hotel Addition /Swiss Chalet Redevelopment — 20 Vail Road' Driver: George 0 11(*1)3 11:00 am 12:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p-m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village; Development Area B, to amend the setback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at Coldstream Condominiums, Unit # 25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6 -1 (Shirley opposed) MOVE TO FIND THAT THE REQUEST, AS SUBMITTED, IS CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12 -9 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 -3 (Shirley, Hartman and Schofield opposed) APPROVAL — MINOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 TO to ALLOW FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE SETBACK 1 TOWN OF MAIL 2. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bellflower Drivel Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. 0 Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: Prior to the application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Design Review Board application for the proposed addition to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 1 A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a text amendment to Section 12 -7A -3 (Conditional Uses) to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George RutherfWarren Campbell WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or 10 structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," `=recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drivelan unplatted tract of land within. Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3`d Filing within the Vail Golf Course. A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 (Bernhardt not ,present) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 (Bernhardt not present) APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 12 CONDITIONS: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the Town Council's adoption, by ordinance, of the associated proposed text amendments to Section 12- $13 -3, Vail Town Code, and Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code. 2. Occupancy Inspection approval by the Town of Vail Building Division and Town of Vail Fire Department shall be required annually prior to occupancy and use of the seasonal ice rink. The applicant shall be responsible coordinating said inspections and shall be responsible for demonstrating compliance with all applicable building and fire codes. 8. All mechanical equipment associated with the seasonal ice rink that is not located within the seasonal ice rink structure shall be located on the north side of the rink and shall be fully screened. 4. If negative traffic or parking issues arise, this approval shall be called up for additional review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their next available regularly scheduled public hearing. 5. The noise output of the seasonal ice rink and its associated equipment will be the lesser of the 55db (day) / 50db (night) output as allowed by Section 5 -1 -7, Vail Town Code, or the existing noise output of 1 -70 traffic. 6. The parking lot shall be maintained free of accumulation of snow or other materials preventing use in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -10 -5, Vail Town Code. Adequate snow storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 145, Vail Town Code. The applicant shall submit a site plan identifying the location of the required snow storage areas to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to Occupancy Inspection. Additionally, a minimum of 75% of the parking lot area shall be maintained free of snow accumulation and snow storage on all weekends. 7. Business activities shall not be conducted within the Vail Goif Course parking lot. 8. This conditional use permit shall be valid from October 151h to April 151 annually. No construction and /or installation of the seasonal ice rink, including any related equipment (including the zamboni) or structure, shall commence on the site earlier than October 15th annually and the seasonal ice rink, including all related equipment (including the zamboni) and structures, shall be removed from the site by no later than April 1 S4 annually. The storage of materials or equipment (including the zamboni) related to the seasonal ice rink shall not be permitted on the site later than April 15f and earlier than October 15th annually. This conditional use permit approval is for a limited time period and shall expire on April 1, 2005, 9. The hours of operation of the seasonal ice rink shall be no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 11:00 p.m. daily from October 151" to April 1" annually. 10, The Vail Recreation District shall schedule use of the seasonal ice rink for the general public. A Memorandum of Understanding shall be executed, to the Town's satisfaction, between the Town and the applicant addressing the scheduling of use of the seasonal ice rink. 11. The use of the seasonal ice rink shall be limited to ice - related athletic activities and similar activities customary to the operation of an ice rink. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan or improvement location certificate, as deemed appropriate by staff, prior to the Town Council's second reading of Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002, to more precisely describe the location of the seasonal ice rink. 13. Any proposal for a permanent zamboni storage structure on this site shall be subject to Town of Vail design review and approval. 5. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to M Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way: north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course. A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FOR TEXT AMENDMENT MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the Town Council's adoption, by ordinance, of the associated proposed text amendment to Section 12- 813 -3, Vail Town Code. 2. The proposed natural gas regulator station shall be relocated west of its proposed location is to the west side of the existing gravel Golf Course access drive along the Frontage Road. The applicant shall revise the proposed easement and survey documents, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail Public Works Department, to address this relocation, prior to the issuance of a Town of Vail public way permit. 6. 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 WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations; Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 2002 A request for a text amendment to Sections 12 -7H -11 & 12- 71 -11, Vail. Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for building constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. .! Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 2002 10. A request for a modification to the 140 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1$t Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 2002 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell WITHDRAWN is 12. Approval of September 23, 2002 minutes 13. Information Update 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. Community Development Department • 100pr MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend the setback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at Coldstream Condominiums, Unit #25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Allison Ochs SUMMARY The applicant, James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend to the minimum setback requirement of 20 ft. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to encroach 4.2 ft. into the required 20 ft. setback as indicated on the approved development plan for Coldstream Condominiums. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed amendment to Special Development District No. 4, subject to the criteria for review as outlined in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, establishes the development standards for Development Area B, Coldstream Condominiums. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998, states the following setback requirement for Area B, Coldstream Condominiums: Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the development plan. The development plan indicates a setback of 20 ft. for the entire property. The applicants, James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, are proposing a deviation to this requirement. The Kaufman residence is Unit 25 of Coldstream Condominiums. They are requesting an addition of approximately 89 sq. ft. The addition will partially enclose an existing deck and will encroach 4.2 ft. into the required 20 ft. setback. In addition, the deck above the proposed addition will be extended 2 ft., which will be 12 ft. into the required setback. The proposal adds approximately 26 sq. ft. of GRFA into the setback. Because the subject property is located within Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, the request is considered a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, in accordance with Section 12- 9A -10, Vail Town Code. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant submit a revised h11 TOWAF OF MIL site development plan to indicate the proposed amendment and the units which would be allowed to encroach into the 20 ft. setback. The revised site plan has been included for reference. BACKGROUND Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, was adopted by Ordinance No, 5, Series of 1976. Subsequent amendments occurred in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990,1991, 1993, 1995, 1998, and 1999. The subject property was a Planned Unit Development under Eagle County Jurisdiction when the property was annexed in 1975. Special Development District No. 4 includes the following: Area A Cascade Village Area B Coldstream Condominiums Area C Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single Family Lots Area D Glen Lyon Commercial Site The entire Cascade Village site is approximately 97.5 acres. The identified public benefits of the Special Development District are: Creation of a "third village" and development of significant bed base has improved Vail's summer marketing potential, bike path and strearn tract open to public, employee housing, CMC facility. Because the property was annexed into the Town of Vail as a Planned Unit Development under Eagle County jurisdiction, and because the early Special Development Districts were not based on an underlying zoning, there is no underlying zoning for Cascade Village. The uses and development standards for the entire property are as outlined in the adopting ordinance for Special Development District No_ 4. The construction of Phase I of Coldstream Condominiums was completed in 1979, and Phase II was completed in 1982. Both phases were completed under the existing Special Development District requirements. The 20 ft. setback is identified on the development plan and on the condominium plat. According to Town of Vail records, there are 45 units of approximately 67,000 sq. ft_ of GRFA. In 1990, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, requesting GRFA to construct additional dwelling units, was denied by the Town Council. The Town Council denied the request, stating that the GRFA would only be allowed for the construction of employee housing units. According to Town of Vail records, no other amendments have been made for Coldstream Condominiums since the development plan was adopted in 1978. IV. ROLES OF THE REVISING BODIES Special Development District and Major Amendment Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use /development, then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. • • PlanrOg and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Counci Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for and recommendation to the Town Council on the following: I. The make a • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter, Vail Town Code. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and /or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Special Development District proposal, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board review of a Special Development District prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review Board proposal: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on -site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of the Redevelopment Master Plan 'ql so Lionshead Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial of an amendment to a Special Development District. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Approval of development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): 0 A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10, Vail Town Code. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 4 APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations: Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: 12 -9A -1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan fora Special Development District, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Special Development District does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside Residential, Single- Family, Duplex, Primary/Secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 12 -9A -6 of this Article. 12 -9A -2: DEFINITIONS: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND /OR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections 12 -15 -4, 'Interior Conversions ", or 12 -15 -5, "Gross Residential FloorArea (250 Ordinance) "of this Title. UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT: The zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. The following Zone Districts are prohibited from special development districts being used: Hillside Residential, Single - Family, Duplex, Primary /Secondary: 12 -9A -6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of a special development district. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the Town Council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12 -9A -5 of this Article. The development plan shag contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, 5 preliminary open space /landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory Uses. 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural AndlOr Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. 12-9A -9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with . ope'r 0 0 consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of this Article. 12- 9A -10: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: A. Minor Amendments: 1. Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 (definition of "minor amendment'} of this Article, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 2. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that maybe affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made within twenty (20) days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment. 3. Appeals of staff decisions maybe filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. B. Major Amendments: 1. Requests for major amendments to an approved special development district shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 12 -9A -4 of this Article. 2. Owners of all property requesting the amendment or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the special development district, and owners of all property within the special development district that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Community Development). Notification procedures shall be as outlined in subsection 12 -3 -6C of this Title. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1) B. Town of Vail Land Use Plan: Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Land Use Flan and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Resort Accommodation and Service This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These area are oriented toward vehicular access from 1 -70, with other support commercial and business services included.. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. LJ High Density Residential The housing in this category would typically consist of - multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. is Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional /public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. 1.0 General GrowthlDevelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. • M pror • r: 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vi. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Development Standard Lot Area: Setbacks. Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: (Area B only) Landscape Area: (Area B only) Special Development District No. 4 Resort Accommodation and Service Mixed Use Allowed Existing Proposed NIA 4,266,926 sq. ft. no change 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15.8 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 60,984 sq.feet (35 %) 29,442 sq.feet (16 %) 29,604 sq.feet (16 %) 91,740 sq. feet (50 %) 98,406 sq.feet (54 %) 98,247 sq.feet (53 %) The adopting ordinance states that there shall be a minimum setback on the periphery of the property not less than 20 ft. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Commercial /Residential HDIVIF III Land Use Zoning North: Right -of -Way NIA South: Open Space (USFS) NIA East: Open Space (USFS) NIA West: Open Space OR Park and Open Space GU Commercial /Residential HDIVIF III am THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12 -9, Vail Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12 -9A -1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is as follows: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in Larder to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space /landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. LJ The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the 40 Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria that shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. IX. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The applicant is proposing a 89 sq. ft. addition, located 4.2 ft. into the required 20 ft. setback. When Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, was established, the adopting ordinance required that a minimum 20 ft. setback be maintained from the periphery of the Special Development District. Staff believes that this 20 ft. setback must be maintained. The proposed addition is located adjacent to the Town of Vail Gore Creek 0 10 stream tract. Staff believes that other opportunities exist which would allow the applicant to expand their unit without amending this setback requirement, including expanding to the south or minimizing the size of the expansion to the north. Staff believes that to maintain design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, the 20 ft. setback requirement should not be amended. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The applicant is not proposing any changes to use, activity, or density (du /acre) which would impact the surrounding uses and activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The parking and loading requirements do not change with this proposal. Therefore, the proposal complies with Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 7.0 General GrowthlDevelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 11 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions_ 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be. accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates Cascade Village as Resort Accommodations and Service. Coldstream Condominiums is designated as High Density Residential. Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance with the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan, F. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the subject property is not located in any geologically sensitive areas. An Improvement Location Certificate has been provided, indicating that the proposed addition is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, establishes a minimum setback from the periphery of the Special Development District of 20 ft. Staff does not believe that it is appropriate to deviate from this requirement. The 20 ft. setback requirement was established to provide a functional development that is responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation, and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The applicant is arguing that because the Coldstream Condominium Association has recently adopted Design Guidelines to guide redevelopment of the Coldstream Condominiums, the encroachment into the setback should be allowed. However, the applicant has clearly stated that they did not consider setbacks as a determining factor in their plan for redevelopment. Staff believes the Vail Town Code, and the Special Development District in which the property is located, should be an integral part of any development plan for the site and does not believe that the Vail Town Code or the Special Development District should be disregarded. Staff does not believe that a deviation should be granted from this setback requirement. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The proposed addition will have no impact on the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. • I r FOH. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposed addition is located on an existing deck and therefore will have no impact on landscaping and open space. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The proposed addition will not involve phasing which would impact the remainder of the Special Development District. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application_ X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend the setback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at Coldstream Condominiums, Unit #25,1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Staff's recommendation of denial is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IX of this memorandum and the evidence presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of denial of the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: That the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the following standards: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 2. That a practical solution more consistent with the public interest is achievable, which would not require a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request, staff recommends the following finding be made as part of a motion: That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the following 13 standards or has demonstrated that one or more of them is not applicable A. Compatibility:. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10, Vail Town Code. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of this request, staff recommends the following condition of approval: The applicant shall submit a revised Development Plan for Area B. Cascade Village, which shall indicate that the revised setback along the northwest property line shall be amended from 20 ft. to 15 fit., prior to the Town Council's first reading of an Ordinance amending the setback requirements of Special Development District No. 4. KI. ATTACHMENTS A. Reductions of plans B. Adjacent Notification 14 Perr • • C. Applicant's statement D. Vicinity Map E. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1976 F. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1958 15 Im rovement Locations Legal description: Part of Unit 25, Coldstream Condominiums - Phase II, according to the plat approved by the Town of Vail on February 22, 1980, Eagle County, Colorado. I hereby certify that the improvement Locations shown are based upon field measurements 133, me and the data shown on said approved condominium map of Coldstream Condomnuum& The Gore Creek locations and 100 year flood plain are based upon field measurements and the FEMA Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Community -Panel No. 080054 0002 dated May 2, 1983-.-.— Vol Stream Tract f f e- C 9 G.C.E eaasting deck L.C.E. Unit 24 2Q 22-9 -` - -} lz.ss° Pro used Enclosure Unit 25 1ST Floor Unit 26 caev, saoa.2 Leland Lechner PUS 30946 County Rd. 356, Buena Vista, Co. 81211 1 7191 395 -9160 N E �s Attachment; is • 0 Date Leland Ikehner �e G4� Vol Stream Tract f f e- C 9 G.C.E eaasting deck L.C.E. Unit 24 2Q 22-9 -` - -} lz.ss° Pro used Enclosure Unit 25 1ST Floor Unit 26 caev, saoa.2 Leland Lechner PUS 30946 County Rd. 356, Buena Vista, Co. 81211 1 7191 395 -9160 N E �s Attachment; is • 0 Hi9 r L3kRd O .(etPfmvXl� 7ttn ' 8 1NTI'�Yla maucwe s NOIINLDQSS`d WVIAISalOJ u JU » t � v 4 x `L s' •1 r f, r Q m f uj Q I � a° O 1 Ln Z O w L1.1 .# t ! .� i i LU LU fr 1`t o.' fr 1 ��'j C w t. ` CL t^i , LU if LU � V _ Z In Of: NNS r CL ,��A ,�+, y � �, ^'6� 7 � �ti'ti;� a`�7 � a'i� q,•�t•�a`- ti� .wy�+ �X� r.,.� 4. ="i'r I * z r y � + .,; .. . -, •o. mgr.rL'�:7:{ _�.r�. lid :_" :ya'•6. riF.l i =-., irk.,. —,.�r' ,Se�`r?..- �- -^�'- +`Y- -,.,.. .f I FAX NO. 1 95'22590239++ Jul. -16 2002 M--18PM F -.1-4 VAIL CASCADE R I S 0 Rf- Oc riyz,,r 'Tr8 1d11O-V,nq c%)rKlOrnj,,jjUMj haj,t PrIvaTe g&aO&!j 24. Z5, Z6, AC, 41, 42'4,1, 45 The ro1rna1-i;nj,cQr%acM:'9U-3 hive co"fleced Pa'Kirto ipaftS its 6931voici f% L)� - map. (licte. A#40 has tch m garage in coverij! parkj;,q Coldstream Condominiums (970) 476-6106 A North > PUMA L- -A • i tU:WjtPA � SCLUOU W � L7L 7r)n7 '0.0 ',Sr)Er)V ',AP'DJF"-K1 0 0 MMO% V MlAO'1 AN Lip, A SAM" ...x6,aAlt9 �LMSIO*-% '/ J I 9 art t f F r� z rx ' 0 A �J Attachment: 8 ' 11riamiF..en, c,i,Ar hiteat FRITZLEN PIERCE/,,,,-.... , _ V�i}iam F. Pierca, Arch }test , , Th,!inas R. Du Bois, Architect VAIL, COLORADO Stephanie Lord-luhnson. Architect David Baum, Architect I;ar} r Hesiinga, Business ivtanager Eagle Pointe Condominiums 1500 Matterhorn Drive Points of Colorado c/o V -BCRP PO Box 36 Avon, CO 81620 Vail Park Meadows 1472 Matterhorn Drive Eldorado Reality 5291 E. Yale Ave. Denver, CO 80222 Millrace Phase III 1335 Westhaven Drive Flower, Michael G. 25011 Catherine Way Dana Point, CA. 92629 *Lot 52, 1415 Westhaven Drive, single owner of both units. Miller, Gary E 233 S. Warson Rd St, Louis, MO 63124 Millrace Phase I c/o Don MacLachlan 1476 Westhaven Drive, Vail, CO 81657 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd, Vail, CO 81657 *Information gathered from Eagle County Assessors' Office on 08/22/02 by Charles Harrison X0111s FRITZLEN '165 ,' Est Vail Wley Drivel, Faiirido- C -1, P I E R C E �'. ;I Cnlr�radf} $1 Gri7 F: 97114 76-4901 �: i9; fC ,(�JV3 €{s1rC�lIYS-(:3."i.rcyrtt ^r ^•• °�• �NLt^ et^ ? ;eii:ilC:llil. { ;t:lL ^.C:r,!IT? • • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on September 23, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A- 10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement. located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village I" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner. George Ruther/Warren Campbell request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend the etback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at Coldstream Condominiums, Unit # 25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review of a final plat of Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing, located at 3160 N. Frontage Road East and 3010 N. Frontage Road East and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. A full metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development t�/t" i c �L Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. t`` e 1 'in `r;zk-n, ALA, :1rchite( Chi boiF, Archiled Stephanie I. ,rc1-} hlr,5t.ln, A.i'chitect Da, id Bailni, ArdiiIRsCT i:Z°tt} i ! slini a, BLNnem Manager August 23, 2002 Allison Ochs, Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 Vail Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Kaufman Residence Unit 25, Coldstream Condominium Application for Major Amendment to SDD FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO Attachment: C Allison, Attached are: Application for Review by the Planning Commission for the above referenced Property Check for $1250 (per our discussions) Stamped, addressed envelopes and a list of adjacent owners Title Report Approval Letter from Coldstream Condominium Association Four copies of Improvement Location Certificate (1 " =20`), plus one reduced copy Vicinity Plan Four Copies of Floor Plan indicating Existing and Proposed Addition Four Copies of photo of existing condition Four Copies of photo overlay indicating proposed addition Please accept the following material in support of the Application: 1 _ The Owner proposes to expand the lower level of an existing Condominium onto a portion of a LCE deck_ 2. The proposed addition is below an existing deck, which is also covered. 3. A portion of the proposed addition encroaches into the Developer established SDD setback as indicated on the enclosed ILC. 4. The area of the proposed encroachment is about 25 sq, ft. in a triangular shape. 5. Although the proposed addition is situated along Gore Creek, the setback from the stream centerline is about 78 fL 6. The Owner has the option of claiming a small portion of the approximate 1100 sq. fit of GRFA available in the Coldstream SDD or applying for a 250 sq. ft. addition for the proposed construction. 7. In that the addition is on an existing deck, there is no modification to existing landscape. 8. The height of the addition is less than 10 ft. 9. There is not effect on sun /shade in that the area is already covered by a deck and roof above. 10. There is no additional parking required for the addition. 11. The addition should not require an Environmental Impact Report due to it's insignificant size. FRITZLEN 1 650, E.ass Vail Vs°al,eav `.)r'iv . [rllrido.- t: -'i, P I E R C E bail. C:oloradr; fl l f. +;' F: 9706 47E.490*1 E� 9i�rofa�� •3'i ?r['E7itFO'ti.�.t3fci ...s..•,.s•. ,z °� >i:;.+;ail<tr.•Iril €s:ls ::it± • E • Lynn Fritzlen, AIA, Architect William F. Pierce, Architect Thomas it. Du Bois, Architect: Stephanie Lord Johnson, Architect David Baum, Architect IY cy lklwb-na, Business FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO Date: 9/13/02 To: Jim Kaufman From: Lynn Fritzlen Subject: Review of Setback Variance Request Coldstream #25 CC: Bill Pierce This memo serves to articulate our position on the Request for a Major Amendment to the Cascade Village Special Development District. Pertinent Documents 1. Coldstream Condominium Plat Phase I dated December 31, 2002 2. Coldstream Condominium Plat Phase II dated March 3, 1980 3. Improvement Location Survey of proposed Additions to Unit #25 is prepared by Leland Lechner licensed Surveyor dated: 8/13/02 4. Title Commitment by Alta for Coldstream Unit #25. S. Arhitectural Plans and Elevations of Proposed Addition 6. Letter of Approval from the Coldstream Condominium Association by Don McLauglin General Manager 7. Photos of development of adjacent properties located on the stream. 8. Town of Vail Criteria and Findings for a Variance 1. Description of Request: A minor addition to Coldstream #25 of 87 square feet at the first level under an existing deck. Approximately 26 square feet encroaches into the rear setback. The proposed addition utilizes available site coverage and GRFA. Addition is within height restrictions and has the support of the association. 2. Type of Request FRITZLEN 1650 East Vail Valley Drive, Failridge C: -1, PIERCE Vail, Colorado 81657 P, 970.476.6342 F: 970,476,4901 E info-- vailarchitects.com wvAv.,;ailarchitects. corn C:`.Windovvs4TEMP%Memo to the Town oa Vaii.doc to FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO 0 The Town has determined that the encroachment into the rear setback requires a major amendment to the Cascade Village Special Development District. 3. Coldstream Condominiums General Coldstream Condominiums has been a successful townhome project that has a mix of second home - owners and permanent residents. Recently Coldstream has undertaken numerous repairs and improvements to their property to maintain their reputation as a quality, desirable multi- family residential complex. 3. Coldstream Remaining Development Potential Coldstream development has available GRFA associated with its underlying zoning as well as the potential to utilize the "250 Addition" allowance. It also has available site coverage. Total build out under current zoning is significant. The Coldstream Condominium Association is attempting to address this potential creatively and responsibly. The association has acknowledged that there is a desire on the part of individual owners to improve and make minor additions to their units. Therefore they have recently developed guidelines to address this potential. 6. Response to Variance Criteria Following is the portion of the Town of Vail Code that addresses deviation from the underlying zone district standards 12 -9A -9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of this Article. (Ord. 27(1988) § 1) FRITZLEN 1650 Eist Vail Valley Drive, Fillrlcige C - -1. PIERCE Vail. Colorado S] 657 F': W0.4/15-6342 r: 970.476.4901 E: irnoca�vailarchitectsxoni www.vaf$ar chitects.corr1 do y FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO 7. Response to Design Criteria Outlined in Section 1 2 -9A -8 A. Compatibility - Impact of Encroachment on Adjacent Properties to the North of Coldstream. The Coldstream Property line sits back 50' from the center of the stream. Neighboring properties to the east and west have properties lines in the center of the creek and development has occurred within 30' of the creek centerline. Coldstream sits back a minimum of 70, from the stream center line. Impact on neighboring properties of the rear property line will be negligible. Please refer to photos attached. B. Relationship to Surrounding Uses - Coldstream is not proposing a change in use as part of this application. C. Parking and Loading - Parking and Loading are located on the entrance side of the units and is not impacted by the addition. The recently adopted Coldstream Design Guidelines discourage additions and improvements into vehicle parking and circulation areas. D. Comprehensive Plan - The Association has recently adopted the Coldstream Design Guidelines to address future development. Please look for our link at vailarchitects.com under Portfolio/Mixed Used Projects to review the standards. This is one of the first associations in the Vail Valley to take a proactive step to address future development of individual units. The goal of the new Coldstream Design guidelines is to encourage additions that match the proportions of the existing building envelope or infill areas already covered by roofs or decks. The purpose is to maintain the current architectural aesthetic and minimize impact on neighboring properties or vehicular and pedestrian access to entries. Additions to the sides or to the entry elevation will potentially have the highest impacts on neighboring units in the Coldstream complex. The rear portions of the buildings, adjacent to the stream, have been identified as the most desirable area to develop. It is not the goal of the association or the original SDD approval to allow the extent of development to be solely determined by setbacks. E. Natural or Geologic Hazard - No part of the Coldstream property sits in a hazard area or stream setback. FR1rZLEN 1650 East Vail Valley Drive, Fahricdge C -1, P I E R C E Vaal, Colorado 81 657 P. 970.4 76.6 34 2 r'. 970.4 7Ci.4 901 E: info4vailarchitects.com www.val larchitectse corn ERITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO 0 F. Design Features - see item C. The majority of the units at Coldstream are set back from the property line in excess of 20' but there are several building corners that touch the property line. Coldstream Unit #25 is one of those units that touch. Refer to Condominium Plat. G. Traffic - see Item B H. Landscaping - A landscape plan will be addressed in the Design Review Board submittal. I. Workable Plan and Phasing - The Coldstream Phasing Plan has been completed and no future phase is being contemplated or encouraged by the Association. 7. Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion we are proposing that there is a mutual benefit to the Coldstream Condominium Association as well as the neighboring properties to thoughtfully and creatively direct development of additions and alterations of Coldstream Condominiums. The applicant and the Coldstream Condominium Association are recommending approval of minor encroachments in the rear setback contingent upon the following: 1. The encroachment utilizes approved GRFA, density and site coverage only. Applications proposing to exceed approved development standards will not qualify. 2. The addition is consistent with the adopted Coldstream Design Guidelines. 3. The area of encroachment does not exceed 100 square feet and does not encroach into platted or prescriptive easements. FRITZLENi 1550 East Val! valley Drive, Fallridge C -1, PIERCE Vail, Colorado 81657 P 970.176.6,142 r. 070.4 76.4901 E: irifot.Olvaclarchitecu,com -."wsailar chitects.Com • c a) 4 a Sy Cl) 0 O;R on =V_ 13 CD M= • 1 • 1 1 ` 1 I� 1 i Z) O E L fit m Yom; Attachment: F ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES OF 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO, 8, SERIES OF 1995, REVISING GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROVISIONS FOR LOTS 39 -1 AND 39 -2, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION, DEVELOPMENT AREA C, SDD NO. 4 (CASCADE VILLAGE); REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 10, SERIES OF 1982, WHICH PROVIDES SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR LOTS 39 -1 AND 39 -2, GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION; DELETING OUTDATED CONDITIONS AND REFERENCES TO EXPIRED DEVELOPMENT PLANS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Hagopian and Pennington, LLC, has requested an amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 4, Development Area C, Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed building height. GRFA, and Employee Housing Unit restrictions for Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1995 and repeal Resolution No. 10, Series of 1982 to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1995, is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. Resolution No. 10, Series of 1982, is hereby repealed. Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures described in Section 12 -9A of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission for an amendment to the development plan for Special Development District No. 4. • ordinance 23, Series of 1998 1 , / Y Section 3- Special Development District No. 4 Special Development District No. 4 and the development plans therefore, are hereby remain approved for the development of Special Development District No. 4 within the Town of Vail, unless they have expired. Section 4. Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village shall read as follows: Purpose 0 Special Development District No. 4 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Flan. Special Development District No. 4 is created to ensure that the development density will be relatively low and suitable for the area and the vicinity in which it is situated, the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and because there are significant aspects of the Special Development District which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shat apply: A. "Special attraction" shall be defined as a museum, seminar or research center or performing arts theater or cultural center. B. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi - family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 545 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit m a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Section 13 -7 Condominiums and Condominium Conversions, Subdivision Regulations. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional 23. Series of 1998 2 fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre. transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. Established A. Special Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 4.@ B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified in this ordinance consisting of the following approximate sizes: Area Known As Cascade Village Coldstream Condominiums Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single Family Lots Glen Lyon Commercial Site Dedicated Open Space Roads TOTAL Development Area Acreage A 17.955 B 4.000 C 9.100 D 1.800 40.400 4.700 97.955 Development Plan -- Required- - Approval Procedure Each development area with the exception of Development Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development plan. Development Area A shall be allowed to have two development plans for the Cascade Club site as approved by the Town Council. The Waterford and Cornerstone sites shall be allowed one development plan each, Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council. The developer shall have the right to proceed with the development plans or scenarios as defined in the development statistics section of this ordinance. Amendments to SDD No. 4 shall comply Section 12 -9A of the Municipal Code. Ordinance 23. Series a(1996 3 • • � M Permitted Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses listed in Section 12 -7B -3, (Commercial Core 1), of the Municipal Code. The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level; 2. All other floor levels besides first floor street level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and office except that no professional or business office shall be located on street level or first floor (as defined above) unless it is clearly accessory to a lodge or educational institution except for an office space having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet located on the first floor on the northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center building; 3. Lodge; 4. Multi - family dwelling; 5. Single Family dwelling; 6. Primary/Secondary dwelling; 7. Transient residential dwelling unit; S. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12 -13 of the Municipal Code; 9. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium. B, Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Two - family dwelling; 2. Mufti - family dwelling. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single- Family Lots 1. Single family dwelling; 2. Two - family dwelling. 3. Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) per Chapter 12 -13, of the Municipal Code. D. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Business and professional offices; 2. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 12 -13 of the Municipal Code. 4 ordinance 23, Series of 1998 Conditional Uses Conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12 -16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 12 -2 shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven multi - family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwelling units. Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks. 3. Special attraction; 4. Ski lifts; 5. Public park and recreational facilities; 6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. B. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts, C Area C, Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single - Family Lots 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts; D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Micro- brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal code, Chapter 12 -2. Accessory Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. Minor arcade. 2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Town of Vail Municipal Code. Ordinance 23, Senes of 1998 5 • I. 3. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis ordinance 23. Series of 1996 courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 4- Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Town of Vail Municipal Code. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tenni3 courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single- Family Lots 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Zoning Regulations., Town of Vail Municipal Code. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Yitle 12, Zoning Regulations, Town of Vail Municipal Code. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses, ordinance 23. Series of 1996 S Ordinance 23, Series of 1 0o8 7 • 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 4. Minor arcade. Location of Business Activity A. All offices, businesses, and shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, and the outdoor display of goods. B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. Density- - Dwelling Units The number of dwelling units shalt not exceed the following: A. Area A, Cascade Village In Area A, a minimum of three hundred fifty -two (352) accommodation or transient dwelling units and a maximum of ninety -four dwelling units as defined by the tables in Section 18.45.103 for a total density of two hundred seventy (270) dwelling units. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums Sixty -five (65) dwelling units C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single - Family Lots One - hundred four (104) dwelling units. D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site Three dwelling units, two of which shall be employee dwelling units as defined Chapter 12 -13, of the Municipal Code _ Density —Floor Area A. 'Area A, Cascade Village The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for all buildings shall not exceed 289,145 square feet. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums Sixty -five thousand square feet (65,000 sq. ft.) GRFA. Ordinance 23, Series of 1 0o8 7 • r E � E • • C. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single - Family Lots GRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section 12 -SD -8 (Density Control) for the Primary /Secondary district of the Town of Vail municipal code. D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. Commercial Square Footage A. Area A, Cascade Village Area A shall not exceed 35,698 square feet of commercial area. B. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. Development Statistics for Area A. Cascade Village, and Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site CHART 1: Area A Completed Projects 8 Ordinance 23. Series or 1998 M ]: LIFTSIaE (WATERFORD) Units 27 56 Employee Uniis 2 1.400 2 TOTALS 2T 47,S00 56 v e.. Cascade Club Addition IAWI e s Cenler 4.5013 22.5 £ Plaza Office 9 S ; 7: - IN TOTALS 208 AU 76 DU 239,660 24.590 129 x49,9 (includes 2 EHUS) ''Plaza space has already been eounled for a retail parsing requlremern The new parking requnemem is based on the difference between the retail and office parking requirements. °For the purposes of calculating GRFA for the CosgriH parcel (Millrace IV), no credits shall be given except for 300 s.f. to be allowed for each enclosed parking space. 9 Ordinance 23, Series of 1998 L� • r - , CHART 2: AREA A REQUIRED PARKING ,Development Plans Site specific development plans are approved for Area A and Area D. The development plans for Area A are comprised of those plans submitted by Vail Ventures, Ltd, and other developers. The development plans for Area D are comprised of those plans submitted by the Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership. The following documents comprise the development plan for the SDD as a whole, Waterford, Cornerstone, Cascade Club Addition Scenario 1 and 2, Millrace IV, and Area D -Glen Lyon Commercial Site and is not all inclusive: 1. Waterford, Sheet #L -2, dated 11- 12 -92, Landscape Plan, Dennis Anderson - 2. Waterford, Sheet #1.1, dated 11- 13 -92, Site /Grading Plan Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 3- Waterford, Sheet #2.1, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 38/43' 3 ", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 4. Waterford, Sheet #2.2, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 48'-6"/53'.-0", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 5. Waterford, Sheet #2.3, dated 11 -13 -92 Flan Level 59'- 0:164' -3" by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 6. Waterford, Sheet #2.4, dated 11 -4 -92, Plan Level 69' -6 "174' -9 ", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz, 7. Waterford, Sheet #2.5, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 80'-Q"/85'-3" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 8. Waterford, Sheet #2.6, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 90' -6" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 9• Waterford, Sheet #2.7, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 101' -0" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 0 10 Ordinance 23, Series of 1998 10- Waterford, Sheet #2.$, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 191' -6" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 11. Waterford, Sheet #2.9, dated 11- 13 -92, Plan Level 122' -0" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 12. Waterford, Sheet #2.10, dated 12- 14 -92, Roof Plan All Levels Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz_ 13. Waterford, Sheet #3.1, dated 11- 13 -92, Elevations Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 14. Waterford, Sheet 43.2, dated 11-13-92, Elevations, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 15, Waterford, Sheet #4.1, dated 11 -4 -92, Sections Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 16. Waterford, Sheet #4.2, dated 11 -4 -92, Sections, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 17. Waterford, Sheet #4.3, dated 11 -4 -92, Sections, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 18. Waterford, Sheet #9.1, dated 10- 20 -92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 19. Waterford, Sheet #9.2, dated 10- 20 -92, Unit Plans, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 20, Waterford, Sheet #9.3, dated 10- 20 -92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 21- Waterford, Sheet #9.4, dated 10- 20 -92, Unit Plans, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 22. Waterford, Sheet #9.5, dated 10- 20 -92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 23. Cascade Club Addition Site Plan, Roma, 10110188. 24. Cascade Club Floor Plan, Roma, 10110188, 25. Millrace 111, Sheet #1, dated 516193, Site Plan, Steven James Riden, 26. Millrace 111, Sheet #2, dated 4113193, Floor Plans for Single Family Residence, Steven James Riden. 27. Millrace III, Sheet #3, dated 516193. Elevations for Single Family Residence, i Steven James Riden. !� 2B. Millrace III, Sheets #4 and #5, dated 3120193, Floor Plans for Duplex Building, Steven James Riden, 29. Millrace 111, Sheets #6 and #7, dated 516193, Elevations for Duplex Building, Steven James Riden. 30. Millrace III, Sheet L1, dated 516193, Site /Landscape Plan, Steven James Riden. 31. Millrace IV, Scenario P, alkla Cosgriff Parcel, Site Plan, Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10128191, 32. Millrace IV, Scenario 1, a1k1a Cosgriff Parcel, Elevations Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10122191. 33, Millrace IV, Scenario I, alk/a Cosgriff Parcel, Floor Plans Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10123191. 34. Millrace IV, Scenario I, alkla Cosgriff Parcel, Landscape Plan, Dennis Anderson Associates. 35. Cosgriff Parcel, Survey, Alpine Engineering, Inc., 10/31191 stamped. 36. Survey, a part of Cascade Village, Eagle Valley Engineering, Leland Lechner, 618187. 37. Site Coverage Analysis, Eagle Valley Engineering, 10110188. Ordinance 23, Series of 1998 11 r� �J 4 • 38. Cascade Village Special Development District Amendment and Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., revised 11122188. A maximum of 1000 sq. ft. of common area, in addition to the approved plans, may be added to the Waterford project to allow for compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and American Disabilities Act. The staff shall review all such additions to ensure that they are required by such codes. Area C, Glen Lyon PrimarylSecondary and Single Family Lots 1. Building Envelopes for Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2 per sheet, L -1, prepared by Design Workshop, Inc., dated 11 -9 -98. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. Development Standards The development standards set out herein are approved by the Town Council. These standards shall be incorporated into the approved development plan pertinent to each development area to protect the integrity of the development of SDD No. 4. They are minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorporated in the approved development plan which is adopted by the Town Council. Setbacks A. Area A, Cascade Village Required setbacks shall be as indicated in each development plan with a minimum setback on the periphery of the property of-not less than twenty feet, with the exception that the setback requirement adjacent to the existing Cascade parking structure /athletic club building shall be two feet as approved on February 8, 1982, by the Planning and Environmental Commission. All buildings shall maintain a 50 foot stream setback from Gore Creek. The Waterford building shall maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from the north edge of the recreational path along Gore Creek. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the development plan. C. Area C, Glen Lyon PrimarylSecondary and Single - Family Lots Required setbacks shall be governed by Section 12 -6D -7 of the Primary/Secondary zone district of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. For single - family Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, development shall occur per the approved building envelopes and is subject to the following: All future development will be restricted to the area within the building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways (access bridge) and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. At -grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than Ordinance 23, Series of 199a 12 ten feet (10') nor more than one -half (2) the distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one- fourth (3) the minimum required dimension between buildings. D. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plans. Height A. For the purposes of SDD No. 4 calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof unless otherwise specified in approved development Plan drawings. B. Area A, Cascade Village 1. The maximum height for the Westin Hotel, CMC Learning Center, Terrace Wing, Plaza Conference Building and Cascade Parking Structure /Athletic Club is 71 feet. 2. Cornerstone Building: Maximum height of 71 feet_ 3. Waterford Building: Maximum height of feet as measured from finished grade to any portion of the roof along the north elevation shall be 55' (South Frontage Road), 56' along the west elevation Westhaven Drive, and 65 feet along the south and east elevation as measured from finished grade. 4. Westhaven Building: A maximum of 55 feet. 5. Millrace III: A maximum of 36 feet. 6. Millrace IV: A maximum of 36 feet. 7. Cascade Club Addition: A maximum of 26 feet. 8. Cascade Entry Tower: A maximum of 36 feet 9. The remainder of buildings in Area A shall have a maximum height of 48 fe et. C. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums The maximum height shall be 48 feet. D. Area C. Glen Lyon Primary /Secondary and Single- Family Lots The maximum height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof and 30 feet for a flat or mansard roof. E. Area D. Glen Lyon Commercial Site 51% of the roof shall have a height between 32 and 40 feet. 49% of the roof area shall have a height under 32 feet. On the perimeter of the building for Area D, height is measured from finished grade up to any point of the roof. On the interior area of any building, height is measured from existing grade up to the highest point of the roof. Development plan drawings shall constitute the height allowances for Area D. Ordinance 23, Series of 1998 13 / � I r1 r� Site Coverage Areas A & B: No more than 35% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of the area is deveioped as an institutional or educational center, 45% of the area may be covered unless otherwise indicated on the site specific development plans. Area C: No more than 25% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, unless the more restrictive standards of Chapter 12 -21 of the Vail Municipal Code apply. Area D: No more than 37 % of the total site area shall be covered by buildings and the parking structure. Landscaping At least the following percentages of the total development area shall be landscaped as provided in the development plan. This shall include retention of natural landscape, if appropriate. Areas A and B, fifty percent, and in Areas C and D, sixty percent (60%a), of the area shall be landscaped unless otherwise indicated on the site specific development plans. Parking and Loading A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 12-10, except that 75% of the required parking in Area A shall be located within a parking structure or buildings with the exception of Millrace lV, Scenario I, where 66.6% of required parking shall be enclosed in a building. - 2. There shall be a total of 421 spaces in the main Cascade Club parking structure. A 17.5 percent mixed -use credit per the Town of Vail parking code, has been applied to the total number of required parking spaces in the Cascade structure. 3. There shall be a total of 58 on -site parking spaces on the Waterford building site with a minimum of 75 % of the required space located below grade. No mixed use credit shall be applied to this site. 4. There shall be a minimum of 93 enclosed parking spaces located within the Cornerstone building with 37 of the required spaces available to the public for short-term parking. No mixed use credit has been applied to this lot. 5. The third floor of the Cascade parking structure shall not be used to meet any parking requirements for accommodation units, transient residential dwelling units, employee dwelling units or dwelling units. 6. Phasing: All required parking for Cornerstone and Waterford shall be located on their respective sites. All required parking for the Cascade Club Wellness Center Addition Scenario 1 shall be provided in the Cascade parking structure. 0 14 Ordinance 23, series or 1998 7. Seventy -five percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm for Westhaven Condominiums, and Millrace fit. 8, All loading and delivery shall be located within buildings or as approved in the development plan. B. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums Fifty percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. Area C, Glen Lyon Primary/Secondary and Single- Family Lots Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 12 -10 of the Municipal Code, D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site 7. Once the parking structure is constructed, the parking and access to Area D shall be managed per the TDA Parking Report, Parking Management Section, pages 6 and 7, August 10, 1988, and TDA Report, Vail Brewery Parking Analysis Update, dated January 16, 1990, both written by Mr. David Leahy. B.' No loading or delivery of goods shall be allowed on the public right -of -way along the South Frontage Road adjacent to the Area D development. 9. The owner of the property and brewery management shall prohibit semi -truck and trailer truck traffic to the Glen Lyon Commercial site. The only truck loading that shall be allowed to the site shall be vans having a maximum length of 22 feet, Recreation Amenities Tax Assessed The recreational amenities tax due for the development within SDD No_ 4 under Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed twenty -five cents per square foot of the floor area in Development Area A; and at a rate not to exceed fifty cents per square foot of GRFA in Development Area B; and at a rate not to exceed fifteen cents per square foot of GRFA in Development Area C; and at a rate not to exceed seventy -five cents per square foot of floor area in Development Area D; and shall be paid in conjunction with each construction phase prior to the issuance of building permits. Conservation and Pollution Controls A, The developer's drainage plan shall include a provision for prevention of pollution from surface runoff, B. The developer shall include in the building construction, energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. C, The number of fireplaces permitted shall be as set forth in the Town of Vail Municipal as amended. D_ If fireplaces are provided within the development, they must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. Ordinance 23, Series of 19$B 15 { ( I { l� 1 u e , i I E. All water features within Development Area A shall have overflow storm drains per the recommendation of the Environmental Impact Report by Jamar Associates on Page 34. F. All parking structures shall have pollution control devices to prevent oil and dirt from draining into Gore Creek. G. In Area D, a manhole on the brewery service line shall be provided so that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength., K In Area D, the brewery management shall not operate the brewery process during temperature inversions. It shall be the brewery owner's responsibility to monitor inversions. 1. All trash compactors and trash storage areas shall be completely enclosed within Special Development District 4_ J. Protective measures shall be used during construction to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek, particularly when construction occurs in Areas A and D. K. The two employee dwelling units in Area D shall only be allowed to have gas fireplaces that meet the Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces. Additional Amenities and Approval Agreements for Special Development District No. 4. A. The developer shall provide or work with the Town to provide adequate private transportation services to the owners and guests so as to transport them from the development to the Village Core area and Lionshead area as outlined in the approved development plan. B. Area A, Cascade Village 1. The developer shall construct a sidewalk that begins at the entrance to the Cascade Club along Westhaven Drive and extends to the west in front of the Westhaven building to connect with the recreational path to Donovan Park. The walk shall be constructed when .a building permit is requested for Westhaven Condominiums. The sidewalk shall be part of the building permit plans. The sidewalk shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for Westhaven Condominiums, 2. The developer shall provide 100 -year floodplain information for the area adjacent to the Waterford and Cornerstone buildings to the Town of Vail Community Development Department before building permits are released for either project. 3. Cornerstone The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. 4. The Ruins / Westhaven Condominiums The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. ys Ordinance 23., Series of 1998 C. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site. The development plan for this area has expired. See Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 for previous requirements. Employee Housing ' The development of SDD No. 4 will have impacts on available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area, In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 17 employee dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium building (Ruins), 3 within the Cornerstone Building and 2 within the Liftside (Waterford Building). Each employee dwelling unit in the Westhaven Condominium Building (Ruins) shall be deed restricted as a Type Ill EHU. Each employee unit in the Cornerstone Building shall have a minimum square footage of 000 square feet. There shall be a total of 2 employee dwelling units in the Waterford Building. One shall be a minimum of 300 square feet and the other a minimum of 800 square feet. The developer of Area D shall build 2 employee dwelling units in the Area D east building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D one employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 795 square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 900 square feet, The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for SDD No. 4, All Employee Housing Units shall be deed restricted per Chapter 12.13, as amended, of the Vail Municipal Code prior to issuance of building permits for the respective project. In Area C, Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, shall be required to provide a Type II, Employee Housing Unit (EHU) per Chapter 12 -13 of the Zoning Regulations of at least 500 sq. ft. each, on each lot. These lots shall not be entitled to the 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA. The 500 sq. ft. shall be included in the allowable GRFA on these lots. Each lot shall also be entitled to 300 sq, ft. of garage area credit for the employee housing unit, in addition to the 000 sq. ft. garage area credit allowed per residence. The driveway width of 12 ft is allowed to remain (no increase in driveway width is required) for all allowed /required dwelling units and employee housing on these lots. Time Requirements SDD No. 4 shall be govemed by the procedures outlined in Section 12 -9A of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that ordinance 23. Series of 1998 17 • any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any. violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of December, 1996, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 5th day of January, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorr o. E 0 Robert - Ford, Mayor ATTEST: relo Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this 5th day of January, 1999. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST. L e!ei .00naldson, Town Clerk ordinance 23, Series of 1998 18 -e . EXHiBTT "A" KOELBEL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AREA A Vail -Rose 12.370 acres A part of the SW 114 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said SW 1/4 NE 114 from which the North one- quarter comer of said Section bears North 0° 15' East 2269.48 feet, thence North 0° 15' East, along said West Line, 152.36 feet to a point on the Southeasterly tight of way line of U. S. Highway No. 6; thence, along said Southeasterly tight of way line, as follows: North 52 °27' East, 102.31 feet. North 49 °20' East, 519.57 feet; and :North 48' 13' East, 549.09 feet, more or less, to a point on the North line of said SW 114 NE 114; thence North 88 °33' East, along the North line of said SW 1/4 NE, 368 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerline of Gore Creek, thence, along the centerline of Gore Creek, as follows: South 36 049' ''Vest, 101.04 feet; South 18 °21' West, 54.08 feet, South 1 °24' West, 205.02 feet; South 12' 10' West, 110.25 feet; and South 28 °41' West, 242.35 feet, thence South 75° 15' West, 1064.10 feet to the point of beginning, Rose Parcel 3.190 acres A tract of land situated in the SW I /4NE1 /4 of Section 12, TP 5 S., R. 81 W., of the 6th P.M., lying Southerly of that certain tract of land described in Book 199, Page 197, Northerly and Westerly of the center line of Gore Creek, and lying Northerly and Easterly of those certain tracts described in Book 211 at Page 106, Book 211 at Page 108 and Book 215 at Page 365, described as follows: Beginning at a point an the North -South center tine of said Section 12 whence the North quarter corner of said Section 12 bears N. 00° 15' E. 2269.48 feet; thence N. 75° 15' E. 346.26 feet to the true point of beginning, said point being on the South line of that tract described in Book 199, Page 197 and which bears S. 08 °26' E. 2205.34 feet from the North quarter corner of said Section 12; thence N. 75 ° 15' E. 717.84 feet along the Southerly line of that tract described in Book 199, Page 197 to the center of Gore Creek, thence S. 28 °41' W. 130.61 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 05 °24'30" E. 104.50 feet along the center line of said Creek, thence S. 49'29'W. 95.50 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S_ 22 °34' W. 124.47 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 54 °00' W. 119.34 feet along the center line of said Creek; to the Southeast corner of that certain tract of land described in Book 211, Page 108; thence Ns 33 ° 16'30" W. 140.12 feet along the Easterly line of that tract described in Book 211 at Page 108; thence N. 57 °42'30" W. 169.88 feet along the Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 211 at Page 108; thence N. 86 °02'30" W. 162.92 feet along the Northerly line of those tracts described in Book 211 at Page 108, Book 211 at rage 106 to a point; thence N. 32 °57'30" W, 76.08 feet along the Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 215 at Page 365, to the point of beginning. F:leveryone4iomUcozlhel.I eR Attachment: E ORDINANCE NO. Series of 1976 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 1.201, of the Zoning r� Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, established thirteen zoning dis- tricts for the municipality, one of which is the Special Development District; WHEREAS, Mansfield Corporation and Gore Creek Associates, limited 'partnership, submitted as owners applications requesting that the Town establish Special Development District 4, hereinafter referred to as "SD411, for the development on its parcel of land comprising 97.52 acres in the portion of the Lions Ridge area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, which was annexed to the Town effective on the 16th day of December, 1975; WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SD4 will development of a critical ensure unified and coordinated and use V site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish said SD4; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TO1,N OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Establishin g Special ecial Development District 4 ". Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fslfilled; Planning Commission Report. The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance have been fully complied with and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning Commission recommending Tr. wn' Ci erk E , { the enactment of this ordinance. Section 3. Special Development District 4 Established; Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning [slap. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 13, and 21 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, Special Development District 4 (SD4), a special development zoning district, is hereby established for the development on a certain parcel of land comprising 97.52 acres in the Lions Ridge area of the Town, and the zoning ordinance and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended by the addition of the following provisions which shall become the Fourth Chapter of Article 13, the caption of which shall be "Special Development District 4 ", and a map which shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map: A. Purposes. Special Development District 4 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and 41 promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; Special Develop- ment District 4 is created to ensure that the development density will be relatively low and suitable for the area and the vicinity in which it is situated, the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the :imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. B. Special Development District 4 Established. (1) Special Development District 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.52 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit A Legal Description attached hereto and made a part hereof; Special Development District 4 and said 97.52 acres may be referred to as "SD4 ". (2) The District shall consist of four separate Townes k Y �►.n development areas, as identified on the attached map consisting of the following approximate size: DEVELOPMENT AREA ACREAGE A r 16.82 B 20 + r C 57 + D 3 + Development Area A is now owned by the Mansfield Corporation, nominee. Development Areas B, C, and D are now owned by Gore Creek Associates, a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Colorado. C. Development Plan Required. (1) Before the owner commences site preparation, building construction or other improvments within SD4, there shall be an Approved Development Plan for SD4. Development of SD4 may be phased by Development Area and within Development Area but a sufficient amount of information shall be supplied with respect to all Development Areas in order to allow the Planning Commission and Town Council to ensure the compatability of any Proposed Development Plan with the remainder of SD4. (2) Each Development Area shall be subject to a single Development Plan. Development Plans for a portion of Development Area must comply with the provisions, terms, and conditions of the Development Plan for the Development Area. (3) A Proposed Development Plan for SD4 shall be sub- mitted to the Zoning Administrator who shall refer the Development Plan to the Planning Commission and to the Design Review Board, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting, and a report of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the Town Council in ac- cordance with the applicable provisions of Article 21 hereof. ry 1 ' \1- Town Clerk .J -3 a C E , (4) Upon receipt of the Proposed Development Plan and Planning Commission report, the Town Council shall determine whether the plan is acceptable to the Town in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 21.505 and 21.506 hereof. This determination by the Town Council shall be made through its enactment of an ordinance amending the provisions of SD4 to incorporate the Development Plan as an amendment thereto, and shall become the approved Development Plan. (5) The Approved Development Plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within SD4. Amendemnts to an Approved Development Plan which do not change its substance and which are duly recommended in a report of the Planning Commission may be approved by the Town Council by resolution. Each phase of development shall require, prior to issuance of building permits, approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with applicable provisions of Article 15 hereof. D. Contents of Proposed Development Plans. (1) Before any site preparation, building construction or improvements of any area within SD4, the developer shall submit to the Zoning Administrator an overall Environmental Impact Report for SD4 in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 16 hereof; provided that such overall Environmental Impact Report shall be supplemented with respect to each Development Area as hereinafter provided. (2) A Proposed Development Plan shall include, but is not limited to the following data: 1. The complete Environmental Impact Report together with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report which brings the original Report to a current status, supplementing such report with respect to the Develop- ment Area or Development Areas involved and is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. 2. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five (5) feet if the average slope of the site is 20 per cent or less with contour intervals or not more than ten (10) feet if the average slope of the site is greater that 20 per cent. Existing and proposed contours after grading for each phase. Town .C7 e r kk J —4— 3. A conceptual site plan, at a scale not smaller that one (1) inch = 40 feet, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas recreational facilities, pedestrial plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off - street parking and loading areas. 4. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one (1) inch = 40 feet, showing existing; landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing, proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as an outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features and other elements for each development area. Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than 1/8 inch = 1 foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior circulation, location of uses within buildings, and the general scale and appearance of the proposed development for each development area. '/ !i To-in ,clerk J ME 6. A proposed plan of parking, loading, traffic circulation, and transit facilities; and a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation needs generated by the development for each development area. 7. A volumetric model of the site and the proposed development, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 100 feet, portraying the scale and relationships of the proposed development to the site and illustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings for each development area. S. An architectural model of each proposed building at a scale deemed appropriate to the development by the Zoning Administrator portraying design details for each phase. 9. A proposed program indicating order of construction phases, transportation facilities, and recreational amenities. 10, A proposal regarding the dedication to the Town or ,private ownership and maintenance of that portion of the Development Area within the 100 - year floor plain of Gore Creek. In the event the 100 -year flood plain is not dedicated to the Town such lands shall be subject to a right of public access to Gore Creek, and the right to use a portion of such lands for a. bicycle path, and for park purposes provided that the location and use of such facilities and access shall be deter- mined by mutual agreement between the Town and the owner of the development areas involved. E. Permitted Uses. Single - family residential dwellings, two - family '/ !i To-in ,clerk J ME s residential dwelling and residential cluster dwellings shall be permitted uses in Development Areas A, S, and C. Two family dwellings, residential cluster dwellings, and multiple family dwellings shall be permitted'uses in Development Areas A & D.. Professional offices and business offices, with a total gross floor area not to exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet, shall be a permitted use in Development Area D. F. Conditional Uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance, for the various Development Areas as herein specified: r CONDITIONAL USES DEVELOPMENT AREA -A $ C D Private clubs, civic, cultural and fraternal organizations X X Public utility and public services X X X X Public buildings, grounds and facilities X X X X Public park and recreation facilities X X X X Ski lifts and tows X X X Institutional or educational center: provided that if said center is constructed, then the following shall be conditional uses in conjunction therewith: lodges including accessory eating, drinking or recreational establishments ---not occupying more than 20`b of the total gross floor area of the lodge to which it is accessory; X X Public or commercial parking facilities; X X Professional offices, business offices and X X studios. The term "Institutional or Educational Center" shall mean a public or private institution for learning, instruction or continuing education. Such facilities may be utilized for seminars or educational programs and may include conference and meeting rooms, audio - visual facilities and necessary accessory useage such as dining rooms and efficiency dwelling units. The phrase "efficiency dwelling units" shall mean any room or group of rooms without full kitchen facilities, but which may include a refrigerator, sink and cook top of no more than two heating units, designed for or adapted Town Clerk • , i► . C'. • L_J 0 to occupancy by individuals attending the Institutional or Educational Center; the efficiency dwelling units shall be accessible from common corridors, walks or balconies without passing through another efficiency dwelling unit, accommodation unit or dwelling unit and each said unit shall not exceed 400 square feet, and shall be considered in r determining the total GRFA allowed for each development area. G. Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in Development Areas A, B, & C. 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupations permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 hereof. 2. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in Development Area C only. 1. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. In addition the following accessory uses shall be permitted in Development Areas A and B. 1. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. H. Density Control. 1. The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following: Development Area A - 252 units Development Area B - 240 units Development Area C - 171 units I. Development Standards. The following development standards are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards shall be incorporated into the Approved Development Plan pertinent to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the development of SD4; the following are minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan which is adopted by the Town Council. i �1 -owni Oerk —7— l 1. Setbacks. Required setbacks shall be as indicated in each Development Plan with a minimum setback on the periphery of the property of not less than 20 feet. 2. Distance Between Buildings. The minimum distances between all buildings shall be as indicated on each Development Plan with a minimum of 15 feet, provided that one foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings 3. He_ ight. The maximum height of a building in Area A shall be 45 feet. The maximum height of buildings in Areas B, C and D shall be 35 feet. 4. Density Control. The gross residential floor area of all buildings in each development area -shall not exceed .35 GRFA in Area A, .30 GRFA in Area B, and .25 GRFA in Area C. 5. Site Coverage. In Areas A and B, no more than 35% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of said areas is developed as an institutional or a educational center, 450 of the area may be covered. In Areas C and D, no more that 25% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. 6. Useable 0 en Space. Useable open space shall be as indicated on the Development Plans but in no case shall the same be less than 250 square feet exclusive of required front set- back areas shall be provided at ground level for each dwelling unit. Useable open space may be common space accessible to more than one dwelling unit, or may be private space accessible to separate dwelling units, or a combination thereof. At least 50 per cent of the required ground level useable open space shall be common space. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as ground level useable open space shall be ten (10) feet. e Town•Clerk -8- 0 :,gnrCIerk L/ 7. Landscaping. At least the following proportions of the total Development Area shall be landscaped as provided in the Development Plan (this shall include retention of natural landscape, if appropriate). Areas A and B, 50M and Areas C and sF D, 60 %_ If any portion of Areas A and B is developed as an institutional z or educational center, these limitations may be modified in accordance with amendment procedures specified in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8: Parking. Offstreet parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance except that 75% of the required parking in Area A shall be located within the main building or buildings. In Areas B and D, 50% of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. On -site parking shall be provided for common carriers providing charter service to the development; said bus parking shall be indicated on the Development Plan. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. If any portion of Areas A and B is developed as an institutional or educational ' center, these limitations may be modified in accordance with amend- ment procedures specified in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance. J. Recreation Amenities Tax. The - recreational amenities tax due for the development with SD4 under Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1974, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.25 per square foot of-the floor area in develop- ment Areas A, B, and C, and at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot in Development Area D; and shall be paid in conjunction with each construction phase prior to the issuance of a building permit. K. Conservation and Pollution Controls. (1) Developer's drainage plan shall include provision for prevention of pollution from surface run -off. (2) Developer shall include in the building construction energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. :,gnrCIerk L/ private (1) Developer shall provide adequate /transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to Village Core area and Lionshead area as outlined in the approved Development Plan. (2) Developer shall provide in its approved Development Plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said shelter to serve the area generally. N. Limitation on Existence of Special Development District 4. Prior to the adoption of the Approved Development Plan, the Town Council reserves to the Town the right to abrogate or modify SD4 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance; provided, however, that in the event the Town Council finds it to be appropriate to consider whether to abrogate or modify SD4 the procedures shall be as provided in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to amendments. 0. Addition to Official Zoning Map. Special Development District 4 shall be indicated on a map which amends and shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map. Town!�C] erk -10- r1 �J L. Recreational Amenities. The Plan include the (1) approved Development shall following recreational amenities: (a) Bike and pedestrian path traversing property from east property line to west property line shall be provided by developer with exact location to be mutually acceptable to developer and Town Council, M. Additional Amenities. private (1) Developer shall provide adequate /transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to Village Core area and Lionshead area as outlined in the approved Development Plan. (2) Developer shall provide in its approved Development Plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said shelter to serve the area generally. N. Limitation on Existence of Special Development District 4. Prior to the adoption of the Approved Development Plan, the Town Council reserves to the Town the right to abrogate or modify SD4 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance; provided, however, that in the event the Town Council finds it to be appropriate to consider whether to abrogate or modify SD4 the procedures shall be as provided in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to amendments. 0. Addition to Official Zoning Map. Special Development District 4 shall be indicated on a map which amends and shall become an addition to the Official Zoning Map. Town!�C] erk -10- r1 �J • L i 0 } Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the Town of Vail. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, and ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 10th day of February, 1976, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 2nd day of March, 1976, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Building of the Town. TOWN O BY: 3 n A. Dobson, Mayor ATTEST: r.,.l3fi l! r IL Town Clerk J d INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED and ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 2nd day of March, 1976. ATTEST:" Town' Clerk r ti • 1 now TOWN O � L BY : n A. Dobson, Mayor Vail -Rose EXHIBIT "A" KOELBEL PROPERTY DEVELOP14ENT AREA A U . • y 0 12.370 acres A part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: r' Beginning at a point on the West line of said SW 1/4 t, NE 1/4 from which the North one - quarter corner of said Section bears North 0015' East 2269.48 feet; thence North 0015' East, along said West Line, 152.36 feet to a point on the Southeasterly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 6; thence, along said Southeasterly right of way line, as follows: North 52027' East, 102.31 feet; North 49020' East, 519.57;feet; and North 48013' East, 549.09 feet, more or less, to a point on the North line of said SW 1/4 NE 1/4; thence North 88033' East, along the North line of said SW 1/4 NE, 368 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerline of Gore Creek; thence, along the centerline of Gore Creek, as follows: South 36049' West, 101.04 feet; South 18021' West, 54.08 feet; South 1024' West, 205.02 feet; South 12010' West, 110.25 feet; and South 28041' West, 242.35 feet, thence South 75015' West, 1064.10 feet to the point of beginning. Rose Parcel 3.190 acres A tract of land situated in the SWgNE� of Section 12, TP 5 S., R. 81 W., of the 6th P.M., lying Southerly of that certain tract of land described in Book 199, Page 197, Northerly and Westerly of the center line of Gore Creek, and lying Northerly and Easterly of those certain tracts described in Book 211 at Page 106, Book 211 at Page 106 and Book 215 at Page 365, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North -South center line of said Section 12 whence the North quarter corner of said Section 12 bears N. 00015' E. 2269.48 feet; thence N. 75015' E. 346.26 feet to the true point of beginning, said point being on the South line of that tract described in Book 199, Page 197 and which bears S. 08026' E. 2205.34 feet from the North quarter corner of said Section 12; thence N. 75015' E. 717.84 feet -along the Southerly line of that tract described in Book 199, Page 197 to the center of Gore Creek; thence S. 28041' W. 130.61 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 05024'30" E. 104.50 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 49029' W. 95.50 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 22034' W. 124.47 feet along the center line of said Creek; thence S. 54000' W. 119.34 feet along the center line of said Creek; to the Southeast corner of that certain tract of r` land described in Book 211, Page 108; thence N. 33016130" W. 140.12 feet along the Easterly line of that tract described in Book 211 at page 108; thence N. 57042'30" W. 169.88 feet along the Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 211 at page 108; thence N. 86002130" W. 162.92 feet along the Northerly line of those tracts described in Book 211 at Page 108 Book 211 at Page 106 to a point; thence N. 32057'30" W. 76.08 feet along the Northeasterly line of that tract described in Book 215 at Page 365, to the point of beginning. 1 0 1 s Pi • HPPde Parcel 1.260 acres County of Eagle and State of Colorado, to wit: A tract of land situated in the SW4NEA of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range S1 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North -South center line of said Section 12 whence the North Quarter Corner of said Section 12 bears North 00 degs. 15 mins. East 2269.48 feet; thence North 75 degs. 15 rains. East 346.26 feet; thence South 32 legs. 57 mins. 30 secs. East 76.08 feet; thence South 11 degs. 00 mires. 30 secs. West 279.99 feet to a point in the center of Gore Creek; thence North 50 degs. 32 rains. West 111.31 feet along the center line of said creek; thence North 38 degs. 40 rains. West 239.09 feet along the center line of said creek; thence South 76 degs. 35 mires. West 89.91 feet along the center line of said creek to a point on the North - -South center line of said Section 12; thence North 00 degs. 15 miss. East 13.95 feet along the North -South center line of said Section 12 to the point of beginning. Total GORE CREEK ASSOCIATES PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AREAS B, C & D Leal Description 16.820 acres 80.700 acres All that part of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: All that part of the N;5NE4 of Section 12, lying Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of U,S. Highway No. 6 and Northerly of the Southerly line of said NhNEa -a, as shown Dn the plat on file in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder as Document No. 97489, described as follows: Beginning at the highway survey monument at the intersection of the Southerly line of said highway and the Easterly line of said N�NEa, whence the Northeast corner of said Section 12 bears North 0003' West 634.785 feet; thence South 73026130" West 1112.13 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 70034' West 125.10 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 69025' West 100,00 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 65050' West 100,00 feet along the Southerly line of said highway; thence South 62015' West 100,00 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 58040' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 55005' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 51032' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence South 47057' West 232.58 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway to a point on the Southerly line of said NhNE; ; thence North 88033' East 497.67 feet along the Southerly line of said N'NE; to the center of the NE4 of said Section 12; thence North 88033' East 1379.35 feet along the Southerly line of said N�NE4 to the Southeast corner of said Nj�NEz; thence North 0003' West 760.95 feet along the Easterly line of said N'NEq to its intersection with the Southerly line of said highway, the point of beginning, CONTINUED AND All that part of the SW;NE' of Section 12, lying Southerly of the center of Gore Creek as shown on the plat on file in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder as Document No. 97489, described as follows:. Beginning at the Northeast corner of said SWgNE4; thence South 68033' West 131.67 feet to a point in the center of r said Creek; thence South 40009' West 94.04 feet along the center of said Creek; thence South 18021' West 54.08 feet along the center of said Creek; thence South 1084' West 205.02 feet along the center of said Creek; thence South 12 10' West 110.25 feet along the center of said Creek; thence South 28041' West 320.00 feet; thence South 5024'30" East, 170.00 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 27000'02" West 85.24 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 54000' West 259.34 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 65034' 'Nest 109.62 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 69004' West 186.13 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 85025' West 68.88 feet along the center of said creek; thence North 77036' West 26.96 feet along the center of said creek; thence North 50032' West 199.19 feet along the center of said creek; thence North 38040' West 239.09 feet along the center of said creek; thence South 76035' West 89.91 feet along the center of said creek; to a point on the Westerly line of said SANEa; thence South 0015' West 461.90 feet to the center of said Section 12; thence North 89.02' East 1382.65 feet along the Southerly line of said SANE. to the Southeast corner of said SWhNE 4; thence North 0006' East 1384.32 feet along the Easterly line of said SANEa to the Northeast corner of said SW'-.NE;, the point of beginning, AND The NA SEq of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M.; AND All that part of the SEhNA of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., lying Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of U.S. Highway No. 6, as shown on the plat on file in the office of the Eagle +County Clerk and Recorder as Document No. 97489, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said SE4NW%; thence South 89002' West 636.95 feet along the Southerly line of said SE;NWa to a point on the Southerly right of way line of said highway; thence North 52035' East 1057.07 feet along the Southerly right of way line of said highway to a point on the Easterly line of said SE aNW a ; thence South 0015' West 628.21 feet along the Easterly line of said SE4NW` to the Southeast corner of said SEkNWa, the point of beginning; EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: that part described in Book 188 at page 545; that part described in Bock 191 at page 241; that part described in Book 203 at page 231; • i,. CONTINUED that part described in Book 203 at page 531; that certain island adjacent to the above - described property, and located in the middle of Gore Creek, which the parties intend to exclude from this transaction; County of Eagle, State of Colorado J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (setbacks) to allow for a side yard encroachment of one foot on the west side of the structure where a portion of an existing covered deck/walkway is proposed to be enclosed, Vail Town Code, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive /Lot4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Alan Budd Zuckerman, is requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (setbacks), Vail Town Code, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive /Lot4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. The variance is requested to allow the applicant to enclose a portion of an existing covered deck/walkway. A portion of the proposed enclosure encroaches into the required 15 foot side yard setback and would require a variance in order to be constructed. Staff is recommending approval of the requested variance as a practical difficulty does exist and would not constitute a granting of special privilege to this individual property. IL DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This request is to enclose 42 square feet of an existing covered deck/walkway measuring four feet in width and 10.5 feet in length (attachment B). The area would create an airlock entry room to the main entrance of the home. The proposed enclosure is located on the west side of the home. Section 12 -6D -6 (setbacks), Vail Town Code, requires side yard setbacks to be a minimum of 15 feet. This portion of covered deck/walkway extends into the side yard setback, however, it does not violate any of the setback requirements (see attachment A) as only when 75 percent of the area becomes enclosed does a side yard encroachment occur as the area becomes Gross Residential Floor Area, Section 12- 15 -3Ad. This proposal encroaches at its maximum a distance of one foot in to the side yard setback and over a distance of six feet tapers to meet the requirement. Approximately 3 square feet of GRFA will be located in the side yard setback. III. BACKGROUND • The original plat for this property was recorded in 1970 when the property was located in unincorporated Eagle County. The existing structure was constructed in 1977 under county regulations requiring side yard setbacks of five feet. When the property was annexed into the Town of Vail under Ordinance 15 in 1987 it was zoned Primary Secondary District with a minimum side yard of 15 feet. • On June 9, 1997, a request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (setbacks), Vail Town Code, and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition was approved. The approved variance was for the encroachment of a dormer into the front setback. The approved variance did not encroach a greater distance than the previously constructed home. The minutes and staff report are attached for greater detail on the request (attachments F, G, and H). IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for. Action. The PEC is responsible for final approval /denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1 _ The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEG maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Vail Town Code Section 12 -2 Definitions • • .7 SETBACK: The distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or location within the lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site. SETBACK LINE: A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses„ structures, or buildings on the site. SETBACK LINE, SIDE: The setback line extending from the front setback line to the rear setback line parallel to and measured from the side lot or site line. Section 12 -6D Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District 12 -6D -1: PURPOSE: The two - family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single- family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two - family primary /'secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 0 12 -6D -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted: Single- family residential dwellings. Two - family residential dwellings. Type I employee housing unit as provided in chapter 13 of this title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 1.1: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -6D -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 -14 -18 of this title. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12 -14 -12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. • Ski lifts and tows. Type II employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. (Ord. 17(2001) § 2: Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 12: Ord. 31(1989) § 2: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -6D -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 14 of this title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single - family and two - family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -6D -5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) §3: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 0 12 -6D -6: SETBACKS: In the primary /secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12 -6D -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33'). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12 -6D -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area, plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand q Y (30,000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of subsections A and B of this Section, a Type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Any Type I employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing Type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a Type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet or greater. (Ord. 6(2000) § 4: Ord. 8(1992) §§ 13, 14: Ord. 37(1990) § 5: Ord. 19(1990) § 1: Ord. 12(1988) § 4. Ord. 23(1986) § 1: Ord. 23(1981) § 2: Ord. 22(1981) § 1: Ord. 35(1980) § 1: Ord, 22(1979) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 2: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -6D -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the total site area. (Ord. 41(1990) § 5: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12- 6D -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least sixty percent (60 %) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord.30(1978) § 2) 12- 6D -11: PARKING: Off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. (Ord. 30(1977) § 2) Section 12 -14 Supplemental Regulations (Development Standards Handbook) Setbacks C. Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc.: 2. Porches, steps, decks or terraces or similar features located at ground love] or within five feet (5') of ground level may project not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one -half (1 /2) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one -fourth (114) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. 3. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5') above ground level may project not more than five feet (5) or more than one -half (112) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one -fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. Section 12 -17 Variances 12 -17 -1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use • regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits ", and by section 12 -3 -7, "Amendment" of this title. (Ord. 8 (1973) § 19.100) 0 12 -17 -5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. (Ord. 8(1973) § 19.500) 12 -17 -6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity„ or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • ire J • 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 8(1973) § 19.800) 12 -17 -7: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT: Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. (Ord. 48 (1991) § 2: Ord. 18(1978) § 5(c)) VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Two - Family Primary /Secondary District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single- family Residence Development Standard Lot Area: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Building Height: Density: GRFA: Allowed /Required Exi_ sting Proposed 15,000 sq. ft. 9,274 sq. ft. no change 20' 13' 13' 15' 15'/15' building 15'/14' building deck on west side encroaches 3' 15' 41' 41' 30`/33' 1 units /acre 2,993* sq. ft. till 1 units /acre 2,796 sq. ft. no change no change 2,838 sq. ft. VII North: South: East: West: VIII Site Coverage: 1,854 sq. feet (20 %) 1,523 sq. feet (16 %) no change Landscape Area: 5,564 sq. feet (60 %) 5,861 sq. feet (63 %) no change Parking: 3 spaces 5 spaces no change GRFA total includes the 250 Ordinance SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Residential Residential Residential Residential CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Zonin_q Residential Cluster District Primary/Secondary District Primary/Secondary District Primary/Secondary District A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed setback variance request is compatible with and comparable to the surrounding development along Bellflower Drive. Many of the existing homes in the vicinity of the applicant's property have side yard setbacks of less than 15 feet. Due to the steep topography of the area and the presence of Gore Greek, the existing development along Bellflower is located nearest the top and bottom portions of the lots. Staff anticipates that this development pattern occurred to insure adequate vehicular access to the properties and to reduce the negative impacts of spreading development across a steeply sloping lot. Staff believes that the applicant's request for relief from the side setback requirements will not have any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's lot. This site currently has a deck which encroaches the side yard setback by eight feet which is three feet more than the permitted five foot encroachment allowed for decks over five feet in height. Several side yard setback variances have been granted to residences along Bellflower Drive. A new residence at 3003 Bellflower Drive was granted a side yard variance for a five foot encroachment. An addition at 2963 Bellflower Drive was granted side yard variances for encroachments of 8.6 and 6.4 feet. An addition at 2955 Bellflower Drive was granted side yard variances for encroachments of 5.5 and 3.1 feet which included a total of 160 square feet of GRFA. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. • C7 • • Staff does not believe this variance request to be a grant of special privilege. The size, configuration, existing structure, and location of Gore Creek are all physical hardships on this lot which greatly restrict the ability of improvements to be made to the structure without a variance. The lot is nonconforming with regards to lot size and the house currently encroaches into the front and side setbacks. Many of the structures in the neighborhood have similar encroachments into the setbacks (see below). Location Description of the site 2923 Bellflower Nonconforming 4 -plex approved by Eagle County. Encroaches 9 ft, into the stream setback, 7.5 ft. into the east setback, and encroaches into the ri ht -of -wa . 2933 Bellflower No information available. 2943 Bellflower Granted a front setback variance to allow for a front setback of 13 ft. Side setbacks are nonconforming at 12 ft. and 5 ft. 2953 Bellflower Granted a parking variance to not enclose parking in conjunction with EHU. Meets all setback requirements. 2963 Bellflower Granted setback variances allowing for a 6 ft. front setback, 6.4 ft. east side setback, and 8.4 ft. side setback. 2983 Bellflower No information available. 3003 Bellflower Granted front setback variance to allow for a 13 ft. front setback, with GRFA being allowed beneath the garage. Side setback variance was denied. 2992 Bellflower Denied (by Council) a side setback variance for garage and GRFA. Meets all setback requirements. 2982 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements. 2972 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements. 2962 Bellflower No information available. 2952 Bellflower Nonconforming. Encroaches into the front setback 9 ft. and 1 ft. into side setback. 2942 Bellflower Granted a front setback variance for a garage and storage area to allow for a 15.5 ft. front setback. Nonconforming with a 7 ft. encroachment into the east side setback. 2932 Bellflower Meets all setback requirements. 2995 Basingdale No information available. 2975 Basingdale Meets all setback requirements. 2955 Basingdale Garage located in front setback. 2945 Basingdale Nonconforming. Encroaches into side setback 7 ft. 2935 Basingdale Granted front setback variance to allow for GRFA below garage in front setback. Below grade encroachment of 18.5 ft. 2925 Basingdale Granted front setback variance to allow for a front setback of 13 ft. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This proposal to enclose 42 square feet of an existing covered deck which will encroach one foot into the side yard setback will not have any noticeable negative impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, • utilities, or light and air. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (setback) to allow for a 14 foot side yard setback on the west side of the lot. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, the Community Development Department recommends that the following findings be made and recommends the following condition: a) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. b) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c) The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. d) The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 Condition: Prior to the application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Design Review Board application for the proposed addition to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Site Plan B. Floor Plans C. Letter from Applicant D. Vicinity Map E. Publication Notice F. June 9, 1997 Staff Report G. June 9, 1997 Minutes H. June 9, 1997 Final Agenda • n • ti E L c R ioi u X45 Ca J.3 Q r, T 04C Z?� -3 Doak i � a� 4 t ` v Attachment: B o - Attachment: B BUDD ZUCKERMAN September 13, 2002 C Mr- George Ruther Town of Vail, Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Lot 4, Bloch. 6 Vail Intermountain Dear Mr. Ruther: The purpose of this letter is to request a side setback variance for Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive. The intent of the application is to allow for the enclosure of a portion of the deck/walkway that currently provides access to the front door of the house in order to create an airlock entry /mudroom. The front door of the house is located along the west side of the house and is accessed via a wood deck/walkway that is 4'wide and approximately 201ong. This walkway is covered by the existing roof structure and is protected by a 42' railing. My intention is to enclose 10'6" of this walkway to create a 4' by 10'6" airlock entry / mudroom. The house, and hence the walkway is angled slightly to the property line. The existing walkway encroaches slightly into the setback, The enclosure would encroach a maximum of P into the setback and taper to a zero encroachment over a length of 9 feet. The application materials require a statement responding to four criteria. The statement follows: A. According to my research many other homes within this neighborhood have received approval for front and side setback variance encroachments. Many of the existing homes in the neighborhood have side setbacks of less than 145'. Relief from approximately 1 foot of the 15' setback, for a span of 9' will not have any negative impact upon existing or proposed uses and structures in the vicinity. I have discussed this proposal with my neighbor to the immediate west and he is supportive of the request. Attachment: C BUDD ZUCKEAMAN 0 B. The relief requested is minor, particularly when compared to other setback variances that have been granted in the immediate neighborhood. Due to the alignment of the house to the lot lines, the existing floor plan this is the only opportunity to create an airlock entrylmudroom_ Due to these circumstances I do not feel that approval of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. C. The area to be enclosed is already covered by the roofline and partially "walled" by the railing. The enclosure of this area and the minor encroachment that this creates will not create any adverse effect upon light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. D, In accordance with the minor level of encroachment this variance represents there is little bearing on the overall town planning policies and objectives. The enclosure of the front entry is a part of an overall upgrade to the property that is supported by Town objectives. The approval of the variance will allow for the creation of an energy efficient airlock entry that will also improve the aesthetic appearance of the house by allowing the front door to face the street. Planned exterior improvements also include removal of some large timber play structures along the west side of the house and re- landscaping the area with trees. I currently have an active building permit that includes the removal of the old wood burning fireplace and replacing that with a natural gas burning fireplace. I believe these improvements are in line with Town planning policies and objectives. In summary, I believe that an evaluation of the factors involved in this variance will allow the town staff and planning commission to carefully consider the criteria for approval and respond favorably to this request, If you have any questions please contact me at 303-499-755' ) or by cell phone at 303-246-8155 Respectfully Budd Zuc man • CL M uQ 0 z rA Attachment: D • • • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on October 14, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Vail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant; Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3`' Filing within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6"' Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135. DO feet, a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 059'22 "W, 115.47 feet; (2) S81 °41'30 "W, 167.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 118'34 "W, 266.90 feet; thence N79 °28'56 "E, 939.41 feet; thence S11 °28'38 "E, 91.78 feet; thence S40 001'19 "W, 490.77 feet; thence S77 °00'32 "W, 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 °50'53" and a chord that bears N65 °08'56 "W, 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson Attachment: E 1 TOWN OF VAIL � A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6'h P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3, whence the northwest corner of Lot 14 Vail Valley Third Filing bears S07 °42'53 "E, 474.77 feet and whence the northeast corner of Lot 16 of said Vail Valley Third Filing bears S26 °20'09 "E 698.51 feet; thence N56 °01'08 "E, 921.55 feet to a point on the south ROW (right -of -way) line of Colorado State Highway No. 1 -70, said point being the true point of beginning, thence N73 °43'36 "E. along said south ROW line 75.00 feet; thence S16 °16'24 "E, 25.00 feet; thence S73 °43'36 "W, 75.00 feet; thence N16 °16'24 "W, 25.00 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 0.04 acres more or less. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 56, Vail Village 1" Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner. Bill Gibson A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther A request for final approval of a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L. Block 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. 2 • • • • • Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren.Campbell 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: George Ruther 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -Dour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Teiephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 27, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive /Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Tarnmie Williamson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4, Series of 1985 which created Chapter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the additional GRFA ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units, which have been in existence for a period of at least 5 years, by permitting up to two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995. the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo /rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is requesting to use 30 sq. ft. of the 250 sq. ft, of Additional GRFA to add a dormer to the second floor of the house. This addition is located over existing floor area and therefore, does not add additional site coverage. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that part of the additional GRFA (15 sq. ft.) be located within the front setback. The existing structure encroaches 7 feet into the required 20 -foot setback and has approximately 104 square feet of GRFA located within the front setback. This structure was originally built in Eagle County, and became legal non - conforming when the Town annexed the Intermountain Subdivision. In June 1996, staff approved a request for 23 sq. ft. of the additional GRFA (250) to remodel a portion of the interior, which was an expansion of the loft area. F� Attachment: F TOWNO *VAIL �J • 0 111. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 0.2129 acre/ 9,274 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed/ Required GRFA: 2,743 sq. ft. With 250 2,993 sq. ft. Site coverage Height: Setbacks Landscaping: 1,854 sq. ft, (20 %) 30733' Front 20' Sides 15'!15' Rear 15' 5,564 sq. ft. (60 %4 minimum) Existing 2,766 sq. ft. 2,766 sq. ft. 1,523 sq. ft. (16 %) 30' 13' 12'/5' 41' 5.861 sq. ft. (63%) Proposed 2,796 sq. ft. 2,796 sq. ft. No change No change -13' 12'15' 41' No change Parking: 3 spaces 5 spaces No change * Existing non - conforming because of deck and patio encroachments III. CRITE=RIA AND FINDINGS Variance Remaining 197 sq. ft, remaining of 250 331 sq. ft. Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based upon on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The structure currently encroaches 7 feet into the front setback and is 17 feet from the edge of asphalt. This proposal will create more bulk and mass. Staff believes this constitutes a negative impact on other existing structures and potential uses in the vicinity. Setbacks are intended to provide a buffer between structures and the right -of -way. A 13 foot setback does not provide the necessary relief. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of the title without grant of special privilege. While the proposal is minimal„ in terms of the square footage (15), it is proposed to be added within the front setback. Staff believes there are 2 other opportunities on the site to place this additional square footage. Staff is concerned with the front setback encroachment. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findincas before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exemptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Additional GRFA Upon review of Chapter 18.71, Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Fac ors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and exis ing structures. The proposal will have little effect upon the existing topography and vegetation, because the addition is located above existing floor area. Staff believes the addition is generally architecturally compatible with adjacent structures. However, staff believes the proposal will negatively impact existing structures. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures, however, the addition of GRFA within the front setback would increase an existing non- conformity by adding bulk and mass to the structure. The fact that the house was built under Eagle County regulations does not prohibit the applicant from making improvements to the structure or utilizing other portions of the site. Therefore, the applicant is not being denied an opportunity to make improvements to the property. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines, as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code_ Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is not in compliance with applicable deveioprnent standards listed above. The driveway on the west side of the property is not paved and there are illegal floodlights on the south corners of the house. These items should have been addressed when the applicant received approval to utilize 23 square feet of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA in June, 1996. Staff believes that the property is adequately landscaped and no additional landscaping is required. Section 18.71 .010 of the code states in part: Purpose: "This Chapter does not ensure each single - family dwelling or dwelling 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 standards." B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively N affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 0 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for a front setback variance subject to the following findings: 1 . That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of this application for 30 sq. ft. of Additional GRFA under the :250 Ordinance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would negatively impact adjacent properties. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 0 5 to A �[7 Y t!l V r S zrf LOW OTS? 7M+, � • ► 7�MG Gi L;71 7r7CTR 4 YT1 _,i - �' •s � 1p •0 r Y r a Y r en \ M y A t 1 I i V ( COC ) 49919 -00 1 1 VA ' Ala C "IIVA �ft�crrtTiq C�E+Z ;�'a7i9 ''11x3 : 3"�� �a 0 tc z I @ . @7 L< -- 2 � . � . Ann v � \ \ � �m $ ) ƒ x •3 u nF z � o02 F u0 :7 F U x G I� _ sg �a Zt + 4 V x F 3 x z � a � u, C C] F 4 = a 3 $ b. 9u i 3 t R 'o d x E� F Y S o� G r40 tJ -J 2 di x F 0. Li. i.3 z F-• t0 T b C Q d czl G 0 � �m • i II U I . D i- z w ,. • G U U 4 G 3 U Q v7 a 0 d d a W GL 0 � �m • RICH AND KRUSEN DESIGN, INC. ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT l000 Lionsridge Loop #3d, Vail, Colorado, 81657 phone-.(97o) 976 -9228 fax: (970) 476 -9o23 Tammie Williamson 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Department of Community Development April 30, 1997 RE: Bannister Remodel, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision -2943 Bellflower Dear Tammie: We are requesting a front setback variance for the above named property on the basis of the following: - -The original plat for this property was completed in 1970 when the property was located in Eagle County. At the time the plat was issued„ a 5' front setback was applied to the property. When property was finally annexed by the Town of Vail, a 20' setback was assigned to the site. This placed a small amount of GRFA of the building(as well as many other buildings on the street) in is the front setback. In fact, eight(8) of the nine(9) buildings located on the north side of Bellflower have GRFA located in the front setback. Three(3) of these have been granted variances in order to make improvements. —We are asking for reasonable interpretation of the specified regulation on the basis that the zoning history of the lot places a hardship on the Bannisters, Almost all of the other buiidings located on this street are in violation of GRFA in the building setback, due to the above mentioned annexation of these properties. It does not seem reasonable to prevent all of the property owners from making improvements to the fronts of their homes. --The variance has no effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. - -The addition of the dormer is a visual improvement on the house and to the neighborhood. - -The addition of the dormer does not increase the existing nonconformity of the home. The encroachment into the front setback will remain the same distance. Both Mr. Bannister and I would like to thank you for your time on this matter. In the past few years Mr. Bannister has put a great deal of money into bettering his home, and hopes that his neighborhood will continue to improve. We look forward to working closely with you on this project. Jack K. Snow, Architect cc Frank Bannister )BED RICH AND KRUSEN RESIGN, INC. ARCHI"T"ECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT A000 Lionsridge Loop #3d, Vail, Colorado, 8 657 plxorxe'(970) 4y5 -9228 fax: (97°) 476 -go73 Tammie Williamson 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 DeiDartment of Community Development June 9, 1997 RE: Bannister Remodel, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision -2943 Bellflower Dear Tammie: We are requesting a front setback variance for the above named property on the basis of the following: - -The original plat for this property was completed in 1970 when the property was located in Eagle County. At the time the plat was issued, a 5' front easement recorded with the plat. When property was finally annexed by the Town of Vail, a 20' setback was assigned to the site. This placed a small amount of GRFA of the building(as well as many other buildings on the street) in the front setback. In fact, eight(8) of the nine(9) buildings located on the north side of Bellflower have GRFA located in the front setback. Six (6) of these lots (1,2,5,7,11, and 17)have received variances and Three(3) lots in the Town of Vail have been granted variances for either density and/or setback based on the history of their lot in order to make improvements. - -Of the three variances sighted in the preceding paragraph the most recent was granted on October 26,1992 to 2963 Bellflower (Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountain); the neighbor to the west of the applicant. This variance quotes the other two applications and therefore should be fairly representative of the precedent already set. While no two circumstances are ever the same; 2963 Bellflower was a smaller lot with a legal non - conforming duplex; it was granted a variance for both density and setback. The density was increased by 79 square feet and the front setback encroachment was increased by 5 feet leaving a 6' setback. Staff at that time stated that they believe"... that (because of) the history of this site, including approvals to construct -A is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain it's original development potential." (Sections deleted from quote refer to the non - conforming duplex,) - -In this same memo (P,E.C. 10/26/92) under Section IV, Staff Recommendations paragraph 3(B). "Staff believes the variances are warranted, specifically because there are extra ordinary circumstances related to this lot that are not generally true of many lots in this zone district. Specifically, the history and documentation of approvals for this site, and its present location within (the) front.. setback.. sets this site apart from other lots..." (Sections deleted from quote refer to the side setback and the minimum lot size.) - -We believe this variance is warranted because the strict interpretation or enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same zone;district. - -The variance has no effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. • • �I he addition of the dormer is a visual improvement on the house and to the neighborhood. >The addition of the dormer does not increase the existing nonconformity of the home. The ncroachment into the front setback will remain the same distance. Both Mr. Bannister and I would like to thank you for your time on this matter. In the past few years Mr. Bannister has put a great deal of money into bettering his home, and hopes that his neighborhood will continue to improve. We look forward to working closely with you on this project_ Sinc K. Snow Architect cc Frank Bannister APPROVEDJWN � g 1997 IS FILE COPY 3. A request for a variance from Section 1 5.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive /Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Talmmie Williamson Punning and Environmental Commission Minwes June 9, 1997 Attachment: G 2 • Tammie Williamson gave an overview of the memo and said staff was recommending denial, because there were other places on the site to locate additional GRFA. She then passed out a copy of the survey that showed the site plan and flood plain delineation. Jack Snow said there were 3 variances granted in the Town of Vail, with the most recent and comparable being the next door neighbor ( Vlaar residence), having received a density setback and encroachment. Jack explained that this application was not asking for any encroachment and that the applicant needed to be provided the same privileges as the neighbors. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. John Schofield asked if there were any comments from adjacent property owners. Tammie Williamson said, no. John Schofield asked about the 15 sq. ft. within the front setback and said that County records stated the house was built within the required County setback at the time. Dominic Mauriello said it didn't matter if it was legal or non - conforming, as it was annexed into the Town. Greg Amsden asked if the applicant was resurfacing the pavement. Jack Snow said, yes. 0 Galen Aasland said his comments were the same as John's. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet said the biggest issue he had with this request, was that it was a grant of special privilege. Jack Snow said the neighbor had been granted approval for a similar request: He said there was a 2nd floor on this building, through no fault of the owner. Greg Moffet asked staff if they were recommending denial because of the 250. Mike Mollica explained the Vlaar density variance was requested to utilize development potential (GRFA) they had available. Greg Moffet said he was having trouble seeing the distinction. Mike Mollica stated that the 250 was not a given for an applicant and the code gives staff specific criteria by which to review a 250 request. Dominic Mauriello said the neighbor had room in the setback and so it was not a similar request. 1 Planning and Environmental Convnission Minutes June 9, 1997 3 f Jack Snow said he couldn't find a reason for denial in the code. Galen Aasland asked what the variances on the other two lots were. Jack Snow said one was in Bighorn, but the file couldn't be found. He said the Shanleyl Broton duplex was a density variance, but the file could not be located. Tammie Williamson stated that density was different from what we were dealing with here. John Schofield made a motion for approval, with the finding that this would not be a grant of special privilege and that several of the homes in the neighborhood were granted the same request and that this hardship existed. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed by a vote of 4 -2, with Ann Bishop and Greg Moffet opposed. Planning and Environmental Commission M1 mutes June 9, 1997 4 • • • • Agenda last mvised 6/10/97 1 Fm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, June 9, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Communi Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (2:15) Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visi MEMBERS ABSENT Gene Uselton 1. First Bank of Vail - 2271 N. Frontage Road 2. Singh - 1229 Spraddle Creek 3. Vail Associates, Inc. - 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building) 4, Haagen Daz - 143 East Meadow Drive 5. Kjesbo - 5111 Black Bear Lane Driver: Dominic NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 13:00 - 6:30 p.m. 12:00 pm 1;00 pm Public Hearing - Town Council hambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to modify the platted building envelope for Lot 9, Spraddle Creek, located at 1229 Spraddle Creek /Lot 9, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Singh, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5 -0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That the applicant submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a better of approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 9, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. Attachment: H 6 *VAIL l TOWN O Agenda last revised 6110197 1 pan 2. A request for a minor subdivision and variances from lot size (Section 18.27.050), landscaping (Section 18.27.100) and parking (Section 18.27.110) requirements for the First Bank in West Vail, located at 2271 N. Frontage Road/Tract C, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Miller Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That a note be placed on the plat stating, "this lot shall be considered an independent parcel for the purpose of zoning and development standards." 3. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Front Setback) and for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a dormer addition, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive /Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 4 -2 (Ann off Bishop p , Greq APPROVED WITH THREE FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the imposition of the Town of Vail annexation regulations (front yard setbacks) rendered many properties in the neighborhood non - conforming. 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 4. A request for a review of the Environmental Impact Report, to allow for a new single - family home, located at 5111 Black Bear Lane /Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Rollie Kjesbo Planner: Tammie Williamson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH FIVE CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant execute the mitigation measures with regular maintenance of sedimentation controls to ensure their effectiveness as outlined in the report; 2. That silt fences be located outside of the snow fence to delineate the limits of disturbance; 3. That the applicant be required to replant and restore wetland native species on- site; 4 0 C-1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a text amendment to Section 12 -7A -3 (Conditional Uses) to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1" f=iling. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther 0 1, SUMMARY The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc., has requested a worksession to discuss the revisions made to the Sonnenalp Hotel addition plans in response to the input they received from the Commission at the September 23, 2042, meeting of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant has requested that the topic of this worksession remains focused on the Sonnenalp Hotel addition only. Future meetings will be scheduled with the Commission to discuss the complete application in its entirety. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The purpose of this worksession meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the revised Sonnenalp Hotel addition plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. The following is a summary list of revisions made to the Sonnenalp Hotel addition portion of the proposal: Arcade on the west end of the building along East Meadow Drive pushed back to the south an additional 5' • Provided a building "break" at center of building along East Meadow Drive. Area recessed to 21' from property line • Overall width of eastern half of building reduced (north I south) by 4' • Eastern half of the building rotated 2.5 degrees clockwise to provide more setback along East Meadow Drive • Eastern tower element reduced in size by 2' on all sides and moved 5' to the south thus creating greater setback to East Meadow Drive • One story arcade provided at west end of the building with 2nd floor, 3rd floor, and 4`h floors setback over 15' from property line • Increased setback of building to Vail Road • Eastern tower element reduced in height by 15 • Building height reduced 1.5' on western half, 10" on east half, and over 2' in the middle portion of the building • Revised the entire roof plane and system in order to break up the ridge line • Provided lowered roof areas for mechanical equipment • Moved dormers on the eastern half of the building into the roof form creating a three -story eave line • Created a landmark element in the roof on the west end of the building to help further reduce the continuous ridge line • Added balconies and windows on the east elevation of the new hotel wing • Reduced proposed retail square footage by approximately 1,000 sq.ft. • Added additional landscape areas along building frontage. See attached letter from Braun Associates, Inc. dated 10110/02 (attachment D) Ill. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2002, the applicant appeared before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for a worksession meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to begin identifying issues for discussion at future meetings. As the meeting was a worksession, the Commission was not asked to take any formal positions on this application at that time. As such, staff did not provide a formal recommendation on the application. A copy of the meeting minutes have been attached for reference (attachment B) On October 11, 2002, the Community Development Department, informed the applicant's representatives that, pursuant to the Town's application submittal requirements for a major exterior alteration, a design consultant will be retained, at the applicant's expense, to aid and assist in the review of the proposed Sonnenalp, Swiss Chalet, Talisman redevelopment application. The Community Development Department is currently in the design consultant selection process. The design consultant will assist in the review of the proposed plans for compliance with the Town's applicable planning documents and land use regulations. Once completed, a report of the consultant's findings will be forwarded to the applicant and the Commission to be used throughout the development review process for this application. A time schedule for review has not yet been determined. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES The applicant has requested this worksession meeting to discuss the revisions made to the Sonnenalp Hotel addition plans in response to the input they received from the Commission at the September 23, 2002, meeting of the Town of Vail Planning and N Environmental Commission. The applicant has requested that the topic of this worksession remains focused on the Sonnenalp Hotel addition only. Future meetings will be scheduled with the Commission to discuss the application in its entirety. As the Community Development Department has requested the design assistance of a consulting designer to aid in the review of this application, and we have yet to retain the services of said consultant, and therefore, a consultant has yet to review the proposal, the staff recommends. that the Commission listens to the applicant's presentation of the proposed revisions and provides feedback on a conceptual basis only. Staff recommends that the Commission reserves providing any specific direction until after a report of the design consultant's findings has been provided. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation on this application at this time. Staff, however, does recommend that the Commission listens to the applicant's presentation of the proposed plan revisions and reserves providing any formal direction until after the report of the design consultant is presented to the Commission. Any direction that is provided should be conceptual in nature only. Staff further recommends, that prior to the scheduling of any future meetings on this application, that the matter of applicant/co -owner signature be resolved by the applicant(s) and that an application with the appropriate signature(s) is submitted to the Community Development Department. Staff's recommendation is based upon the requirements outlined in the Vail Town Code relating to application filing procedures. V1. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. PEC Meeting Minutes (draft), 9/23102 C. 11 " x 17" revised plan set D. Letter from Braun Associates, Inc. outlining proposed revisions, date 10/10/02 • � � r � , y m•>��� + r� i•� � r" �' ft r �- �''$' � � -� � _ Sri Y d � - a Now C'A4 1 i .�,ddF S9M1ft'ti `yy'•'° 'C`'�F. 16 , �•, � � L�°� �'� �" -h' •-S`.� _ *,1 � ' -� %ri .+aa. � _ �,,,. �`..i�r ��C� � -r � : 'vim". �. IF c. 57i- PIT- LAI MTN TOO n.: F f .fj6ti. r FIX r a; `} r „ Wilu Pam -iii: ���� 'rl '� '�' �� a >' � L i : �^�.x,,.i�r "v. x�kr���r E � •.a:- l - F �- s � z • y � 1 � � �A � tom{ v1� � "���S �' � "F41' r�,, �� ey ,1'i��t', _� .,..� i �y- ✓s 4� ±t�.9= �� ° a #.. rs �,,. _ sha � i {+,�w' �U r- w Ell 4e�; 1,11 a 7l7 ni�§-` G 5,, A s^`"� , !?tia Pam Was INA vs- kiiz � �x®e� �E�":fr �� �.. " -'?- mow• w '1 ' •.a �'f' .� ,.tr,s is � � 'r'ti� w .s F�..t � 'r " `�-s.- ",4: � �''�'i`± • '� F . � �;c*� �`e -T'�• -i.��.,i+ ,�.;'`` 4. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the file and gave a description of the request and mentioned that this is just a work session and staff will nQt be giving a recommendation. He then read from page 2 of the staff memo and gave a chronology. He read from page 5 from the staff memo regarding applicable documents and read the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. He said the site is located within two land use designations and covered access opportunities, as listed in the staff memo. He also brought up the TGV Streetscape Master Plan and stated there were six issues staff wanted clarification on at this hearing: 1. Complete development application; 2. lot or site area; 3. proposed setbacks; 4. sun /shade analysis; 5. mitigation of development impacts; 6. access requested by the Talisman off E. Meadow Drive. He then said the criteria are outlined in the staff memo. Dominick Mauriello introduced the applicants and went through the project and presentation and gave the open space recommendations from the VVMP. He said the plan recommends there be a plaza space and open space and our plan includes these. He said we are proposing landscaping and open space on the site and that the parking and circulation plan calls for very little or no vehicle activity in areas reserved for pedestrians. He said there was limited impact and the Building Height Plan, in the VVMP, was used in the past for people deviating from their zoning. He said they were proposing something that complies with the zoning. He mentioned the goals and action steps with the first one having to do with Vail Road and the town implementing some of that and this proposal reflects the same direction. He said infill retail and lodging are what's called for by the plan in this location and this is what we're proposing and that pedestrian activity is accommodated by our proposal in keeping with the Plan. He said parking is accommodated by the parking structure, the Port Cochere, and at the Talisman. He said they believed there is a balance that needs to be achieved with these policies. He said the next issue is the Swiss Haus. He said providing additions to the existing building is what the plan calls for, and they were doing that with a new building. He said fire issues have been worked through with Mike McGee. He said the Streetscape Master Plan is reflected in our proposal 98% and that you won't see cars; you'll see buildings. He said with regard to setbacks, that they have worked within the PA zone district's standards for setbacks. He said the rear setback is very accurate and that our proposed building will be in essentially the same location that it is in now. He said the Town's plan focuses on sun /shade analysis and the shadows are pretty much contained in one area. He said the urban design elements are not addressed by staff, but are a big part of the plan and that there is also a whole provision about street edge that says buildings can come up to the property line along the street. He mentioned in our proposed plan, we do achieve many of the urban design guidelines. He said dining decks are mentioned in the memo and the plan helps preserve some quality areas, such as La Bottega's. He said the final issue I'd like to address is with respect to access to the Talisman and that today, they have 20 spaces. He stated that the Public Mall Act of 1974 allows communities to define spaces for public mall access and that the town wants to encourage less auto and more 10 _l r pedestrian traffic. He said the point is that we have worked hard with the Talisman to address the access issue. 0 Tom Braun said a project like this is all about balance and the owner, the neighbors, and the Town: all have interests at stake. He said there are many plans and policies that are in place here and it's likely that no one is going to get everything that they want in this deal. Russ Forrest said there are many positive aspects to this project and we just need to address the issues as soon as possible. Jim Lamont said he has a ringing endorsement of this project. He said Johannes called me three years ago and asked me what we {H ©A} would think of a project like this and an amendment to the PA zone district. .Jim said we've got to distinguish between wants and needs. He said we had an individual that questioned the switch to pedestrian from vehicular access to the town and Johannes was the first to offer a cure with the loading and delivery system. He said we are making key steps in our loading and delivery systems in the TOV and this proposal is a big part of this progress. Gwen Scarpello said we have not seen the detail but, in general, we are very supportive of this proposal Larry Eskwith said the Talisman has conceptually agreed to this development and is in the process of working out a development agreement with the Sonnenalp. He said we do not want the PEC to think that all of the issues have been resolved and that access is going to be an issue. He said other than some issues, we think the project is a good one and there has been good communication between the Talisman and Sonnenalp. • Jerry Orten said he was here on behalf of 7 owners of the Talisman who have some of the same concerns that Larry just outlined. He said the issues revolve around the ways in which the redevelopment of the Sonnenalp will effect the Talisman, such as mass & bulk, the setback issue, realignment of property lines, and the possibility of the Talisman to redevelopment itself not being hindered. We ask that their signatures be required as a condition of approval and the Talisman 7 would like to be a part of the decision for this proposal_ John Schofield said we cannot resolve these issues between you; you all have to do that amongst yourselves and asked if there was any further public comment? He said this is strictly a work session and we will not be making a decision today. He said specifically, we have items that staff would lik6feedback on and that having been said, I'll turn to Gary. Gary Hartman said he is encouraged by what I've seen so far, but there is a big issue of how do we look at this as a whole? He said he wonders if there is a way to make the Talisman more compliant with the pedestrian quality of the area and to make it much more compatible. He said the spa looks like an afterthought and the retail along both frontages seems excessive and do we really need that much over there? He stated that there are vacant stores on Bridge Street now. Doug Cahill said the application is being taken care of, I assume, but the valet parking seems to be an issue. He said the landscaping percentage could be an issue in the long run for the whole site, including the Talisman. He asked if it is one lot or is it three and that this will be an issue as we move forward unless it is resolved. He said the 20' setbacks can be addressed by stepping back parts of the buildings and putting the retail out. He said he 40 would rather see some movement there and the bulk and mass pulled back a bit. He said that sunshine during the winter should be maximized and on -site mitigations through landscaping is needed and that he was not stuck on the retail number. George Lamb said he is in concurrence with everything said so far and that the Talisman is the real issue and he hopes it gets worked out and suggested that the Swiss Chalet could be stepped back a bit. Rollie Kiesbo said that obviously, if you're going to have one lot, the Talisman will have to be on the application and he agrees that the 4 stories straight up on the property line is not going to work. John Schofield asked what the current setbacks are right now? Dominick Mauriello answered on the existing Sonnenalp along Vail Drive they are in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 feet. John Schofield said that the Talisman folks need to be aware of what their limitations are concerning future developments. He said if you do not get that property into one parcel, I think you're all stuck; the Talisman more so than the Sonnenalp. He said from Staff's standpoint, if it does not come in as one application, then we have to start looking at individual access and setbacks from internal property lines. He said parking definitely remains an issue and he thinks we need to hear from staff regarding loading and delivery and setbacks remain an issue as well. Dominick Mauriello said the Talisman is out of conformance today and what we're proposing will bring them more into compliance in several areas and moving the building does not do much about reducing the shadow. Tom Braun said the setback and sun /shade issues are all interrelated and the ground level retail might be right up to the street, is that correct? Yes, ok. John Schofield asked a question of Russ regarding the Talisman's use of the 250 addition. Russ Forrest said they have it available but with its location along the setback on the creek side it would prove difficult to make additions to individual units. He added that staff had a letter from the Talisman saying its ok to go through the process, but that they do not authorize any plan or portion thereof and asked if it was the boards opinion that the Talisman needs to sign the application as an applicant? John Schofield stated yes. He added that he would like to see how the traffic circulation will work on Willow Drive. 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane /Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson Allison Ochs: Introduced the file. Julie Anderson stated the public safety issue is crucial to maximize radio coverage for police, fire and emergency services. John Schofield asked for comments from PEC members. George Lamb said we looked at the site and the Snowshoe Lane side is bust and it is my understanding that the ERWSD did not want that. 12 Doug Cahill recommended that six trees be planted in front of the tower. Gary Hartman made a motion for approval, with the condition that six evergreen trees be planted for screening. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Russ Forrest asked for any comments please? George Lamb said to make it simple. Gary Hartman said to give a definition of frontage. Doug Cahill said to categorize the code, so when an applicant comes in with a question, you can get to the meat of his issue quickly. John Schofield said you better define Physical Hardship and the appeal process. He said the DRB should have discretion on the form and layout and the simpler the better is what everyone is looking for. Doug Cahill made a motion to table this item. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. 7_ A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendmentto Section 12 -7A -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto. E E 10 Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell TABLED TO OCTOBER 14, 2002 A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 2002 Approval of September 9, 2002 minutes Information Update 13 • • 0 BMABRAUN ASS00AT[ES. INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT October 10, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission CIO George Ruther, AICP Chief of Planning Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81 657 0 Re: Sonnenalp Redevelopment - Materials for October 14, 2002 PEC Hearing Dear PEC Members: Thank you for the comments that you shared with us at your last meeting. We were encouraged by your input and have spent the last several weeks addressing many of the comments you made. At the October 14 hearing we would like to focus the discussion on the proposed Sonnenalp Hotel expansion along East Meadow Drive. There were several comments made regarding this portion of the project and we would like to take time to address this portion of project in detail. We will address the remainder of staff and PEC comments on other elements of the plan in the next few weeks (i.e., traffic circulation issues, floodplain issues, parking issues, etc.). The PEC comments on the hotel addition revolved around the orientation of the building to the proposed street edge, the continuous nature of the facade, and the proposed setbacks of the building to the edge of the street. We will address issues in great detail and describe the relationship to the Town's Urban Design Guide Plan at the hearing on Monday. Below is a list of specific changes that have been made to the plans is response to your comments: • Arcade on the west end of the building along Meadow Drive pushed back to the south an additional 5' Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph. - 974.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Bouievard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www,braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 81632 Attachment: D • Provided a building "break" at center of building along Meadow Drive. Area recessed to 2 P from property line • Overall width of eastern half of building reduced (north / south) by 4' • Eastern half building rotated 2.5 degrees clockwise to provide more setback along Meadow Drive and to provide a "break" in the building facade • Eastern tower element reduced in size by Ton all sides and moved 5' to the south thus creating greater setback to Meadow Drive • One story arcade provided at west end of the building with 2nd floor, 3`d, and 4`h floors setback over 15' from property line • Increased setback of building to Vail Road • Eastern tower element reduced in height by 1.5' • Building height reduced 1.5' on western half, 10" on east half, and over 2' in the middle portion of the building • Revised the entire roof plane and system in order to break up the ridge line • Provided lowered roof areas for mechanical equipment • Moved dormers on the eastern half of the building into the roof form creating a three - story eve line • Created a landmark element in the roof on the west end of the building to help further reduce the continuous ridge line • Added balconies and windows on the east elevation of the new hotel wing • Reduced proposed retail square by approximately 1,000 sq. ft. • Added additional landscape areas along building frontage We hope these changes address your concerns. We believe the proposed changes help to further implement the Street Framework, Street Edge, and Street Enclosure goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. r" rel Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP FA 4q c acv oU- i5p a (L o u e u LL 0 7j CL IL cl J 4 tl �] p p J -1 tl J L W �f >p + q II1J �. �Q3� ts U �}a'aLLaa�4e?s]aij = �` tl m �— �� $ IL F Q a _�b�w o— p -0n�n Mek�LL Va+Laaaal��o�a�a� -- ¢] J F J J li C W a SK y _a7a D7(L iL a 0. p 0 1 0 �TT ] ky qky J 0 00ppp0 »' 60000 ppb p " Off=' p q O O P p m LLliali t�R`ul Ul v d) ELLLL LL iL t1W LL ..] ±+ap�1 i a�a} a as a� q � � �.F -..-`. ..� !- �+g wQrJILL lLLLwwiLwz ll=1 =' -iului (Gl�[DWLLlLLL1LLL m ,° [p� �c�.�m�v' ryQ 9 X mV7`� K Y "7�V�4�@S1.0 QJJJ �QQQQ4'QQQ'� W �a}�jNLL700011)0 � tsfa)dYd�n)K�d?t17dSds 1 QQLLI WWWW W WWWWWWWWW 55 q p S± 0 W U w C� o � 93 ����! t�f�a�4�4f��sa4� fl�zr►n�rt.Br�lartr �...w.s�. S} Q 4��� $ 4eae�maeleee F i'r €�,rf$ +ftli6rt(l�ir�.etl�s�rr t�latyirf� .calay�y� �r aa6J6�6eeaa raft¢ EiP lfE�Elrz��rttrrcilQ:�3:¢.�� €�p� i 911,nlhlj+ 01099¢p9FFeM,P €! €EFMflA lilt 4040 :11ri MIL 499911d millf Li- e rMIMI 1<4 ho Allis 0 W U w C� o � 93 ����! t�f�a�4�4f��sa4� fl�zr►n�rt.Br�lartr �...w.s�. S} Q 4��� $ 4eae�maeleee F i'r €�,rf$ +ftli6rt(l�ir�.etl�s�rr t�latyirf� .calay�y� �r aa6J6�6eeaa raft¢ EiP lfE�Elrz��rttrrcilQ:�3:¢.�� €�p� i 911,nlhlj+ 01099¢p9FFeM,P €! €EFMflA lilt 4040 ���➢➢ p4����f���rrrrr�rtrr���� $������������`��# i������� 3l 4���134�, rrer3�a?��rSe�Kra���rr��jt !le�a9 �!� �l��ylrr �e�E�r.3 €l��a�araaa�aari�raaa aoa�s����Er�rS�cat� €� I I r 22� F 0 S) §1 E 9 4 L 7 U 0 a u a D I.. 1 t �a �"t�oQ1•®09. {a +. .e r!I' I�IIII 1 �il IlVll 11 I Y 9 a� :11ri MIL 499911d millf Li- e rMIMI 1<4 m Allis ���➢➢ p4����f���rrrrr�rtrr���� $������������`��# i������� 3l 4���134�, rrer3�a?��rSe�Kra���rr��jt !le�a9 �!� �l��ylrr �e�E�r.3 €l��a�araaa�aari�raaa aoa�s����Er�rS�cat� €� I I r 22� F 0 S) §1 E 9 4 L 7 U 0 a u a D I.. 1 t �a �"t�oQ1•®09. {a +. .e r!I' I�IIII 1 �il IlVll 11 I Y 9 a� r l� 4 N Ed APE FARM%d �e a f 14114 f 1 rl OLLGW p141DGE IfaA0 e / s� e y O , I � r t 16 j 1 , � kA S 1 4 \ >ti 1 % � Ci l , m4 � i 1I �` 11 F- Mft • Mal iii:.- jar Nn ar ,� IN- TIP Mft • Mal iii:.- jar Nn ar ,� IN- TIP >u d Imp- / 4"' s #s�7 tiM �r MIN NIQ � ■ t� ate' �l ►r. ti f ec y f fn fI11f11j � r i �' � •r ��1 i � _,� r 4"' s #s�7 tiM �r MIN NIQ � ■ t� ate' �l ►r. ti f ec a u f� �� .� ``� :, �`�. 9 m B 1 k i �_-' '- / � � / / -_� / . -` / �__' '/ ' �-_ --. � � ' \ \ \ ` . ` �^` \ �`` ' ``- � �� � ^` ` \, \ ` ,�\ V /7.� � ~�T7* F- LLI qt� ® O w �4Q m= 1 �I 1 1 ki x w 00 mo � a i y � � t 1 W �- �a a WW U�3 1 �'y SUN o� w LL, � W i} yl 1 tu 2 Q IL I dim ff Q I Iii C, w J 11 6 a ,x x w I Z6 6fv Sa-l9'1 11� 'L W#.VJ .L 0,6 j \ 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 � � 1 1 r 1 / r 1 1 / / s 1 / 1 1 r J d } m ti + r 1 Y � 8L. 1 CaRAb $ D LU rNa�N �,us :r I S Y -- u i ry W ! ' r Q k )( U-4 p W r t I LW+L IY Y J` ` r v h,, ll,f � ► y r IL ❑ 4 l� Y • DI � a it � to Ill w 1-7, Y yy I � ■ J I � , • l Y y 1 y y y 1 i; • r1 a • - l ��1 � � 1 � 1 W 0.1 l y 21- t— it No 5 y{ 4 • I .j W X z y� s 1 t 14 h • LJOCAI 3�13drD� 4 1 y 5 rJj� f i; • 1 " I I h y y y y I 4 ' y I 1. I ._ ale I � . x5 / 1 1 � 1 ' I I y\ I l I I 1 f 4 - I Y 5 4 5 � r , , 4 lq } 55 4 61 1 1 4 1 11 j ti t y } L m ® � h II ry it ti 7 t s I � i � 4 0 in 1 �y \ t 1 s t 1 1 :f w .4n 44 4n 44 i } i i V, , � ~ � z - -- x � � � l i � � ! ' h ` � _ -- � �- • |d ■& � 4 | �| ` � • . ' 1 4 a$ |2 [ 22 � 4 � \ \ - \� y f LU -- �� � Air 4 P M M NIN MIN � III | | | | | | | | | | | | | | � � | | | | | � � | | | | | | | | | | / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | � | | | | � | | � | | | | | | | | | | | � TT_ U U 'H U U U n I � u ~w � � .� � 8 » � � i~ ^ � / � --1 | —_� | | | | / � | | | | | r� 1 i �aALAZI � ' i f 0 i -)C)O F U • Y1 a I I 1 r y 1 II I r jFtl, r � a r I A II I � I I 1 I _ —J I I I � - I I � I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I -- jl I I I II I 11 5L_.; J I Y � I I I h / 1$f7I( I zs 1 +� I t III � `�� �, � .•�' =`•�, •� i r EI '�� IIIIIIIIIII�� Cb !/j 1 � of •. .�� f —_ —� u Y d I — - fi I e I I i I 4 n r'! I I s I I I � { I� I _II I III I 14 i i i I ......, n II, . ...... r � t l ♦ i ` ♦ 1 w t� sy /� ♦ \ iw f. \.. V r ♦ /f i is 4 'w I I I I Call .___. t I - r I I I k I I r I I I i I 1 _ I I I i I II r I 5 , rt, I ♦ 4 ` |\ \ ! E 1 ./ -- - �mr - / / / t 1 _•t y a 3 ........... a 1 I elll- Cl I i G 16¢ p � wq� GF`a1 F� 6 MN I I M;.; 1,4 .0 . 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "`recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drivelan unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 31d Filing within the Vail Golf Course_ A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey and Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson 0 I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Junior Hockey Association and Vail Recreation District, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -8B- 3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and approval of a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. Based upon staffs review of-the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the requested conditional use permit and forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. il. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Junior Hockey Association and Vail Recreation District, is requesting to amend the Vail Town Code. Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Vail Town Code. The proposed amendments include a text amendment to 40 Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and text amendments 1 to Section 12 -2 -2 (definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure, " "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity" as follows: (deletions are shown in strike- throug#/additions are shown bold) RECREATION STRUCTURE: Any covering erected over a recreational amenity, - such as which is not seasonal structure. For the purposes of this Title, a recreation structure shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure shall requira a elitienal - e peFmitip subject to design review. RECREATIONAL AMENITY: An exterior recreation based improvement or facility including, but not limited to, swimming pools, hot tubs, athletic fields and courts, ice rinks, skate parks, golf courses, driving ranges, playgrounds, and other similar amenities. SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE: A temporary covering erected over -a rr, rea+ional omen y Qnpis GouFt, to accommodate or extend educational, recreational, and cultural activities for fie moose -af expanG r-u eatheF4rrenth&. Such temporary seasonal severs coverings may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be 0 subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shell require, - a-cenditionakus-- pel--;'- ;- - ascerd -M#?- � s subject to design review. The applicant is also requesting approval for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. These proposed text amendments and the conditional use permit request are intended to facilitate the construction of a seasonal ice rink at the Vail Golf Course driving range site. The proposed seasonal ice rink is an air supported clear span dome constructed of a white colored coated poly vinyl fabric. The dimensions of the structure will be approximately 225 feet in length, 120 feet wide, and 36 feet in height. The seasonal ice rink will accommodate an ice hockey skating surface, dasher boards, bleacher seating for approximately 30 people, and skate changing /dressing areas. Restrooms and additional dressing areas are accommodated within the Golf Course Clubhouse. Mechanical equipment including a portable blower and chiller system will be located on the north side of the ice rink. A copy of the Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal, prepared by PJA Land Planning, an Outdoor Recreation zone district map, and a draft version of Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002, have been attached for reference (see Attachments C - E). to N r I r is III. BACKGROUND In October of 1991, the Town Council adopted the "Development Code Revision Report, Phase I." In May of 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission began its review of proposed text amendments prompted by this report to amend the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district and the Public Use zone district, and to create a new outdoor recreation oriented zone district. The initial approach to these code revisions consisted of amending the Public Use zone district and the Natural Open Space zone district, as well as, renaming and amending the Agriculture and Open Space zone district to create a new Recreational Open Space zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission expressed concerns about allowing buildings within zone districts intended for open space, and recommended the elimination of some proposed conditional uses in the Recreational Open Space zone district such as single family residential dwellings, churches, rectories, schools, colleges, convents, seasonal use or structure, etc. The Planning and Environmental Commission also expressed concerns about the impacts that eliminating the Agriculture and Open Space zone district could have on established individual property rights. Upon further deliberation, the Planning and Environmental Commission directed staff not to rename and substantially amend the Agriculture and Open Space zone district to the proposed Recreational Open Space zone district, but instead make amendments to the Public Use zone district and Natural Open Space zone district, and to create a separate recreation oriented zone district and to rezone certain Agriculture and Open Space zone district properties to this new district. This new district was intended to fit between the less restrictive Agriculture and Open Space zone district and the more restrictive Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district. On October 4, 1994, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 21, Series of 1994, to amend the provisions of the Public Use zone district and the Natural Open Space zone district, and to create the Outdoor Recreation zone district. As adopted the Outdoor Recreation zone district did not allow a seasonal use or structure as a conditional use. Currently, all Outdoor Recreation zoned properties within the Town of Vail are owned by the Town of Vail. In the fall of 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision creating the "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision" (location of the Vail Golf Course driving range and seasonal ice rink) and conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice rink at the Vail Golf Course driving range site. The Planning and Environmental Commission placed nine conditions on its approval of the conditional use permit. The applicant has addressed each of these previous conditions of approval in their attached Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal (see Attachment C). Also in the fall of 2000, the Town Council heard an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decisions and upheld the Commission's decisions. The Town Council also approved a rezoning of the "Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision" from Outdoor Recreation (OR) district to General Use (GU) district. 3 P . , The seasonal ice rink was constructed and operated during the winter seasons of 2000- 2001 and 2001 -2002. A recent court decision issued during litigation of the previous approval of the seasonal ice rink has nullified the rezoning of the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision. The minor subdivision approval of the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse Subdivision and the conditional use permit for the previously approved seasonal ice rink have lapsed and are no longer valid. Therefore, the applicant has submitted new text amendment, conditional use permit, and design review approval applications to facilitate the construction and use of the seasonal ice rink for this winter season into perpetuity. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning.-and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approval /approval with conditions/denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission 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 i 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. 0. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval /approval with conditions/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 0 4 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. Conformance with development standards of zone district. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority of a text amendment or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approval /approval with conditions /denial of a text amendment. Is 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. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. 5 r S � Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denim. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Codei Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, currently defines a recreation structure as follows: RECREATION STRUCTURE. Any covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, which is not a seasonal structure. For the purposes of this Title, recreation structures shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 16 of this Title. Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, currently defines a seasonal use or structure as follows: SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE. A temporary covering erected over a 0 recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court,- to accommodate educational, recreational, and cultural activities for the purpose of expanding their use into the cold weather months. Such temporary seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 16 of this Title. It is important to note that this definition precludes a seasonal use or structure from the site coverage and building bulk control standards prescribed in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. The Vail Golf Course is zoned Outdoor Recreation (OR). Pursuant to Section 12- 813-1 (Purpose), Vail Town Code, the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district is as follows: The Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. 7-.J 2 • The applicant is proposing to amend Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow a "seasonal use and structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Section 12 -16 -1 (Purpose, Limitations), Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they maybe located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. The maintenance of the parking lot, including snow removal, is regulated by the provisions of Section 10 -5 -1 (Construction and Maintenance), Vail Town Code: All off - street parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the minimum standards for such facilities prescribed by this chapter, and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the facilities in accordance with the intent of this chapter, except for temporary periods of short duration in event of heavy or unusual snowfall. The provisions of Section 14 -5 (Parking Lot and Parking Structure Design Standards For All Uses), Vail Town Code, identify the following snow storage standards for all excluding residential uses under three units and including, but not limited to, commercial, retail, office, restaurant, institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple- family development: Snow Storage All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate on -site snow storage (i.e., within the boundaries of lot and not within the right-of-way). A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees may be utilized for this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% between the developments shall not be required. 7 Town of Vail Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course and many other Outdoor Recreation zoned properties as Park (P). This land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goal statements that staff believes are applicable to this proposal: 1.1 Vail should continue to growin a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. • 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 0 2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site as part of the golf course and the Action Plan simply designates the area as an existing "developed park" with no recommendations specific to this site. Town Council Mission Statement We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally - sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. 0 8 VI. VII. • l'!" • SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Hazards: Outdoor Recreation (OR) Park (P) Golf Course None Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Setbacks: 20 ft. NIA > 20 ft. Building Height: NIA N/A NIA Density: N/A NIA NIA GRFA: NIA NIA NIA Site Coverage: N/A NIA NIA Landscape Area: NIA NIA N/A Parking: per PEC 110 spaces 110 spaces SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Golf Course CDOT 1 -70 Right -of -Way South: Golf Course Club House Residential East: Golf Course Residential West: Golf Course CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Zoning Outdoor Recreation (OR) Unzoned General Use Low Density Multiple Family Outdoor Recreation (OR) Primary /Secondary Residential (PIS) Outdoor Recreation (OR) The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -3, Vail Town Code (Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Text Amendment: I. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and Section 12 -8B -1 identifies the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation District as follows: Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. 91 Staff believes that a text amendment allowing a seasonal use or structure as a Is conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district will permit additional opportunities for active and passive recreation activities within the Town of Vail. The temporary nature of a seasonal use and structure will help ensure that undeveloped or open space lands are not permanently altered by intensive development. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, will clarify the provisions of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) which will further the purpose, intent, and objectives of the regulations. 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 The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course and many other Outdoor Recreation zoned properties as Park (P). The Paris land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. Staff believes that allowing a seasonal use or structure as a conditional use within the Outdoor Recreation zone district is consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan's Park land use designations, since a seasonal use and structure will facilitate additional educational, recreational, and cultural activities within the Town of Vail. Staff also believes that as a conditional use the Planning and Environmental Commission can ensure that any proposed seasonal use and structure is consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan through the imposition of conditions and limitations pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -16-1, Vail Town Code_ Staff believes that the proposed text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, will clarify the provisions of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) which will further the purpose, intent, and objectives of the regulations. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed text amendments are compatible with the Town Council's mission statement which reads as follows: We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally - sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. 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 • 10 At the time of the creation of the Outdoor Recreation zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission contemplated the construction of structures such residential dwellings, churches, rectories, schools, colleges, convents, seasonal uses or structures, etc. At that time, the Commission determined that these types of structures were not appropriate uses within the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Staff' believes that the extensive use of the proposed seasonal ice rink during the 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002 winter seasons demonstrates a recent, strong public interest in using a seasonal use or structure to meet the community's growing demands for education, recreational, and cultural activities within the Town of Vail. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. The proposed amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 further clarify existing zoning regulations relating to seasonal uses and structures, and the proposed revisions to Section 12 -8B -3 are similar to existing use regulations prescribed in other zone districts. Staff also believes that as a conditional use the Planning and Environmental Commission can ensure that any proposed seasonal use and structure is consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan through the imposition of conditions and limitations pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -16 -1, Vail Town Code. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, will clarify the provisions of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) which will further the purpose, intent, and objectives of the regulations. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text 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, 11 The review criteria for a request of a conditional use permit are established by the Town Code. The proposed seasonal ice rink is located within the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Therefore, contingent upon adoption of the aforementioned proposed text amendments, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code. C. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course as Park (P). This land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. Staff believes that construction of the proposed seasonal ice rink is consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan's Park land use designation, since the proposed seasonal ice rink will provide additional active recreation activities and expand the recreational use of the Vail Golf Course property. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goal statements that staff believes are applicable to this proposal: 1.2 Vail should continue to growin a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Staff Response -- Staff believes that the high demand for ice rink use at the Dobson Ice Arena and the previously approved seasonal ice rink at the Vail Golf Coures demonstrate that the construction of the proposed seasonal ice rink is needed to balance the need for recreational uses for visitors and residents. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. Staff Response, This project involves the placement of a public recreational structure on Town lands. This portion of the golf course property is not located within any identified geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas), 0 12 0 Staff Response — The subject property is an located within an infill area. 2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. Staff Response — This is a non -skier related winter recreational facility. When coupled with the existing golf course driving range, the property will provide a year -round tourism amenity. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. Staff Response — the Town has discussed the issue of down - valley ice facilities with other jurisdictions to address local recreational demands. However, in recent years the Town Council has agreed to appropriate funding for an additional temporary ice sheet in an effort to support local and regional demand for public ice. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Staff Response - The intent of the proposed seasonal ice rink is to provide an extended period of use (regardless of weather conditions) and a higher quality ice surface. Staff believes this effort is consistent with the stated goal of improvement of existing park lands and facilities. The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site as part of the golf course and the Action Plan simply designates the area as an existing "developed park" with no recommendations specific to this site. Therefore, staff believes that this proposed conditional use permit request meets the development objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Staff believes that this proposal meets the development objectives of the Town of Vail, and the objectives of the applicable master plans. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, . and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the improved ice surface will provide a positive impact upon demonstrated parks and recreation facility needs. Staff does not believe this proposal will adversely impact the other above - listed items. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 13 The Town of Vail Public Works Department has indicated the operation of the previously approved season ice rink at the Golf Course driving range site over the past two winter seasons have posed no significant problems related to the above listed items. However, due to user demand staff believes it is imperative that snowplowing and parking lot maintenance, in compliance with the provisions of Section 10 -5 -1 (Construction and Maintenance), Vail Town Code, remain a key priority at this site. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Staff believes that the past construction and operation of the previously approved seasonal ice rink have demonstrated that this proposed does not have significant negative impacts to the character of the area. D. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation zone district. 10 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed text amendment to Section 12 -813 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity." Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 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 NXII 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. The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: This approval shall be contingent upon the Town Council's adoption, by ordinance, of the associated proposed text amendments to Section 12 -86 -3, Vail Town Code, and Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code. 2. Occupancy Inspection approval by the Town of Vail Building Division and Town of Vail Fire Department shall be required annually prior to occupancy and use of the seasonal ice rink. The applicant shall be responsible coordinating said inspections and shall be responsible for demonstrating compliance with all applicable building and fire codes. 3. All mechanical equipment associated with the seasonal ice rink that is not located within the seasonal ice rink structure shall be located on the north side of the rink and shall be fully screened. 4. If negative traffic or parking issues arise, this approval shall be called up for additional review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their next available regularly scheduled public hearing. 1s • 5. The noise output of the seasonal ice rink and its associated equipment will be the lesser of the 55db (day) / 50db (night) output as allowed by Section 5 -1 -7, Vail Town Code, or the existing noise output of 1 -70 traffic. 6. The parking lot shall be maintained free of accumulation of snow or other materials preventing use in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -10 -5, Vail Town Code_ Adequate snow storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 -5, Vail Town Code. The applicant shall submit a site plan identifying the location of the required snow storage areas to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to Occupancy Inspection. 7. Business activities shall not be conducted within the Vail Golf Course parking lot. 8. This conditional use permit shall be valid from October 1" to April 1 s1 annually. No construction and /or installation of the seasonal ice rink, including any related equipment (including the zamboni) or structure, shall commence on the site earlier than October 1" annually and the seasonal ice rink, including all related equipment (including the zamboni) and structures, shall be removed from the site by no later than April 1" annually. The storage of materials or equipment (including the zamboni) related to the seasonal ice rink shall not be permitted on the site later than April 1st and earlier than October 151 annually. 9. The hours of operation of the seasonal ice rink shall be no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 11 :00 p.m. daily from October 151 to April 1st annually. 10. The applicant shall schedule use of the seasonal ice rink for the general public. A Memorandum of Understanding shall be executed, to the Town's satisfaction, between the Town and the applicant addressing the scheduling of use of the seasonal ice rink. 11. The use of the seasonal ice rink shall be limited to ice - related athletic activities and similar activities customary to the operation of an ice rink. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Notice B. Vicinity Map C. Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal D. Outdoor Recreation zone district map E. Draft Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002 F. Correspondence • 16 Attachment: A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on October 14, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Vail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2- 2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure, " in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3" Filing within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6tn Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 °38'21" and a chord that bears N72 059'22 "W, 115.47 feet; (2) S81 141'30 "W, 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 118'30 "W, 266.90 feet; thence N79128'56 "E, 939.41 feet; thence S1 1028'38"E, 91.78 feet; thence S401101'1 9"W, 490.77 feet; thence S77 000'32 "W, 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said 'Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1 89. 10 feet, a central angle of 44 050'53" and a chord that bears N65 °08'56 °W, 144.27 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson TW'' OF PAIL 1 A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -88 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 61h P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3, whence the northwest corner of Lot 14 Vail Valley Third Filing bears S07 °42'53 "E, 474.77 feet and whence the northeast corner of Lot 16 of said Vail Valley Third Filing bears S26 °20'09 "E, 698.51 feet; thence N56 °01'08 "E, 921.55 feet to a point on the south ROW (right -of -way) line of Colorado State Highway No. 1 -70, said point being the true point of beginning, thence N73 °43'36 "E, along said south ROW line 75.00 feet; thence S16 °16'24 "E, 25.00 feet; thence S73 043'36 "W, 75.00 feet; thence N16 °16'24 "W, 25.00 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 0.04 acres more or less. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a modification to the 1.00 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade /Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther A request for final approval of a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block SE, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther /Warren Campbell C: • • A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell 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: George Ruther 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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. Community Development Department Published September 27, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 3 Attachment. B 4�- -aaf F JIM 43 SIN • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGES 1.0 INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 -2 2.0 PURPOSE----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2 -3 3.0 PROPOSED PLAN----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- X7 is 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7 -9 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT --------------- -------------- -9'49r 6.0 CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 19_.. Report prepared by Rick Pyhnan PJA Land Planning PO Drawer 4727 Vail, CO 970.949.8102 0I C 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide information relative to a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a seasonal structure to enclose an ice skating surface Iocated on the site of the Vail Golf Course Driving Range. The Vail Golf Course Driving Range was historically utilized as a seasonal, open -air ice skating rink. The skating surface was groomed by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine and surrounded by hockey dasher boards. An overhead lighting system allowed for evening use of the facility. The skating surface was maintained as long as weather allowed but was often subject to closure due to heavy, snow or warm temperatures. In the fall of 2000, the Town of Vail approved a zone change from Outdoor Recreation to General Use for the driving range and a Conditional Use Permit to install a seasonal structure on the driving range to allow for enclosure and mechanical refrigeration of the ice surface. The zoning change has since been reversed and the existing zoning is Outdoor Recreation. The Conditional Use approval was valid for a two -year period and expired in April 2002. This application is being made concurrently with a request to amend the Outdoor Recreation Zone District to add "Seasonal Structures" as a Conditional Use. The seasonal structure that was in place for the winter seasons of 2000 - 2001 and 2001 - 2002 functioned very well for many different recreational user groups and for the general public. Coined the "Vail Ice Donne" by a visiting hockey team, the facility was considered very successful in providing an additional ice surface to supplement the demands on Dobson Arena. It is the belief of the Vail Junior Hockey Association that concerns with the operation of the structure which were raised during the 2000 Conditional Use Permit approval process were successfully addressed during the two year tenure of the ice dome. In order to continue to utilize the ice dome on a seasonal basis a new Conditional Use Permit is required. This request is to continue to use the existing seasonal structure in exactly the same manner as it was used for the past two winter seasons. Seasonal Tce Rink Pronosal The intention of this application is to provide the appropriate information to allow for the review of a Conditional Use Permit for the requested use. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this request is to increase winter recreational opportunities for local children, local adults, and our winter guests by providing for a viable seasonal ice surface that will not be impacted by unseasonably warm temperatures, direct sun, or heavy snows. Dobson Arena is currently the only covered and mechanically refrigerated ice surface in Vail and in Eagle County. The increasing participation in local youth programs, adult skating programs, Women's hockey and figure skating, along with the continued use of Dobson Arena as a community special events facility has created a demand for ice time that has surpassed the capacity of Dobson Arena. During the winter of 1998-1999 Vail hosted the 1999 World Alpine Championships and the entire VJHA program was shifted to the golf course rink for several weeks while Dobson Arena was transformed into a special events center and rodeo ground. During the winter of 1999 -2000 the in -floor refrigeration system in Dobson Arena failed and again the recreation activities scheduled for Dobson Arena were shifted to the Golf Course rink for several weeks. These events caused significant disruptions to local recreation programs and the outdoor ice surface proved unreliable in meeting the demands placed upon it. The intent of this request is to increase the viability of this recreational site and remove the scheduling and use uncertainties that are related to the outdoor facility and its exposure to the weather. The intention of this seasonal facility is to address recreational ice demand until a permanent facility is constructed. �J Participation in the Vail Junior Hockey Association program alone has grown significantly over the past 5 - 7 years. The majority of this program growth has been at the lowest age levels, indicating a strong demand for available ice time will continue for years to come. 0 CPaennaT Tro Rink PrnnnRA I • Meanwhile, other programs have begun and flourished, which also place pressure on ice time demands. The Vail Girls' Hockey Club has grown and flourished to the point where it was brought under the direction of the Vail Junior Hockey Association. Vail is also home to several competitive women's hockey teams, several competitive men's senior league teams and to a thriving local men's senior recreational program and a Focal figure skating association. The continuation of the seasonal enclosure over the driving range ice surface will benefit all of those users and allow for the continuation of these popular recreation programs while other permanent solutions are discussed and evaluated. 3.0 PROPOSED PLAN This proposal is to locate a seasonal structure of approximately 225 feet in length, 120 feet in width and 36 feet in height (225' x 120' x 36) on the Vail Golf Course driving range in the same location as it has been located for the past two winters (See Figure 1). The structure is an air supported clear span dome constructed of a 23 ounce per yard coated poly vinyl fabric in a white color. The structure will be anchored into concrete footings that are already in place in the driving range. The structure is a new, state of the art, energy efficient structure designed expressly for this use. The structure meets or exceeds industry standards and Uniform Building Code requirements. The floor plan of the ice dome is open and consists of a regulation size ice hockey surface with dasher boards and a small bleacher area that seats approximately 30 people. A revolving door along the south side of the rink will allow convenient access from the parking lot and to and from the Golf Course Clubhouse. Skate changing and dressing will occur within the structure and within the cart storage level of the golf course clubhouse. Restroom facilities are available in the Clubhouse. Mechanical equipment consists of a blower to maintain air pressure and an ice making chiller system. The chiller system is approximately 25 feet long, 8 feet wide and 6 feet high. The chiller is powered by a 200 horsepower electric motor. At normal ice maintenance operational levels the noise output has been determined by actual measurements to be lower than the existing background noise of Interstate 70. This mechanical equipment is designed as a fully portable system and is mounted on a trailer. The mechanical equipment will be located on the north side of the ice rink. The same Cr- acnnal Trw Rink Prnnncal • E • wooden fence that has been used for the past two winters will be installed to provide visual screening of the equipment. The Zamboni will be stored within the cart barn of the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse and a garage door system at the east -end of the structure allows the Zamboni access to the ice surface. The existing parking lot at the Vail Golf Course can accommodate 100 cars and has proven adequate to accommodate the proposed use. In addition to the existing ice rink, the Golf Course restaurant will remain open. The Clubhouse is also the location of the Vail Nordic Center. The parking lot has been sufficient to accommodate these uses for the past two years and it is anticipated the available parking will be more than sufficient to meet demand. A maximum parking demand for the rink facility may be calculated by assuming a game situation with two teams arriving and two teams leaving at one time. The average team size is 14 players and using a conservative assumption of one car per player the maximum parking demand would be for 56 parking spaces. The more typical use of the rink will be for overlapping single team practices, which will only require parking for 15 to 20 cars. The facility has the potential to be used from approximately 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. on a daily basis, however, the bulls of the demand for ice time comes from the after school hours until 10:00 p.m. The October 2000 approval of the Conditional Use Permit for this seasonal structure included a number of conditions. The ice dome operated over a period of two winter seasons and maintained full compliance with the conditions of approval. Those conditions and the method of compliance are described below. 1. All mechanical equipment associated with the rink must be fully screened. If possible, the equipment should be moved to the north side of the rink. Response: The mechanical equipment was screened with a 8' high solid wood fence and was located on the north side of the structure. The current application proposes to locate and screen the equipment in exactly the same manner. The CPacnnal TrP Rink 'Prnnncal A • fence was constructed in a modular manner and is currently in storage with the other components of the structure. 2. If traffic or parking issues arise, the approval, the approval will be called up for additional review by the PEC. Response: No traffic or parking issues were noted during the two winter season operating period and there was no call up by the PEC. 3. The noise output of the rink and its associated equipment will be the lesser of the 55db (day)150db (night) output allowed under the town's noise ordinance, or the existing noise output of 1 -70 traffic. This will be confirmed by town staff with noise monitoring equipment. Response: Sound readings conducted by the Town of Vail staff while the mechanical system was in operation indicate that the noise level was below the background noise levels of Interstate 70. Specific readings taken by Town of Vail staff indicate that the noise level 16 feet north of the mechanical equipment (towards I -70) registered at 64 dB . At a distance of only 10 feet north of the equipment with a shield in place between I -70 and the noise meter, the noise level registered at 48 -50 dB. At the property line of the nearest residential property, the Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, the sound meter registered 55 dB. Staff notes indicate that the noise of the mechanical equipment was not audible over the noise generated by 1 -70 traffic. 4. The parking lot must be maintained at all times for use at full capacity (110 spaces). No snow storage (or business activities) can be accommodated within the parking lot. Response: The parking lot was fully maintained and available for use during both winter seasons. No change to this situation is anticipated. Soncnnnih -r Rink Prnnncal AZ • 5. The conditional use permit will be valid between the dates of November 1st through April 1st (annually) from 7:30 a.m. to 11:00p.m. daily. Response: The management of the structure adhered to these operating dates and hours for the past two seasons. Experience has proven that a three to four week time frame is necessary to complete the set -up and to prepare the ice surface for use. In order to allow for use of the facility by November 1st the conditional use permit should be valid from October 1 to April 1 of each year. While the hours are generally acceptable a 6:00 a.m. start time would be preferable for the new conditional use permit. 6. This approval is for a limited time period beginning November Ist, 2000 and ending April 1st, 2002. Response: The time frame for this initial conditional use permit has expired, thereby necessitating this request for a new conditional use permit. The applicant requests that this permit be granted in perpetuity. 7. Full compliance with Town building ordinances and the Uniform Building Code must be demonstrated by the applicant. Response: This compliance was demonstrated. A new building permit will be required for installation each season, allowing the building department to review code compliance issues. 8. Scheduling and use of the rink (through the Vail Recreation District) will be open to the general public. Scheduling details will be addressed via a management agreement between the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District. Response: A Memorandum of Understanding between the town and the recreation district was executed and the management of the rink upheld the terms of the agreement. The MOU has since expired and a new MOU should be discussed. Cracnnal imp Rink Pmrr cal Ic �1 9. The approval of this conditional use permit is conditioned upon the approval of the associated rezoning ordinance ( Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2000) on second reading. If the rezoning to General Use does not occur, this conditional use becomes null and void. Response: The General Use zoning is no longer in place. The current zone district is Outdoor Recreation. 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA The following Sections address the criteria required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 0 Section 18.60.060 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code addresses criteria for the review of a Conditional Use Permit. The following paragraphs list those criteria and provide a response that describes how this proposal meets those criteria: L Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town; Reonse: The proposal to cover and mechanically refrigerate the existing seasonal ice skating surface at the Vail Golf Course furthers the development objectives of the Town by creating a more reliable and functional seasonal recreational facility. As a winter season use the skating rink complements the summer use of the golf course and takes advantage of the existing infrastructure. The use can be located with no damage to the driving range facility and with little or no impact to the immediate neighborhood. The existing buildings and landscaping will help to screen the facility from residential .L.Pn Qnn.n1 irr Rink Prrvrvus1 ^7 • is uses and the mechanical equipment Iocation is designed to mitigate any potential impacts to residential properties. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parrs and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; Response: The Vail Golf Course Driving Range has been the site of a winter ice skating facility for many years. Over the past two winter seasons the proposed seasonal structure operated in the same manner as proposed by this application with no adverse impact to the above mentioned criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas; Response: The existing street circulation system and golf course parking Iot is capable of handling the traffic with no increase to congestion or negative impacts to safety and traffic flow. The past two years of experience with this exact operation prove that there is sufficient traffic and parking capacity to accommodate this use. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; Response: While the proposed structure is fairly large in size, the proposed location will minimize any negative visual considerations from residential properties in the vicinity. The white color of the structure will blend in well with the winter conditions of the site. Photographs of the actual structure in place are available for review and are included within these application materials. .CPaCnrnI Tra Rink Prnnncal 0 • S. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use; Response: The applicant is willing to address any other factors or criteria the commission deems applicable. 6. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Chapter 18.56; Response: An Environmental Impact Report is included with this application. 7. Prior to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee or time -share license proposal, the applicant shall subunit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent of the owners of existing units, indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed time- share, fractional fee for time -share license. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the date of filing the application for a Conditional Use. All buildings, which presently contain time- share units, would be exempt from this provision. Response: This Conditional Use Permit request does not entail time -share or fractional fee use. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with Chapter 18.56 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, for the proposed seasonal ice rink facility to be located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course. • Rencnnnl Tvp Rink Prrnmcal [� • The proposed plan is to locate an air supported fabric structure of approximately 225 feet in length, 125 feet in width and 36 feet in height (225' x 125' x 36) on the Vail Golf Course Driving Range in the same manner and location as it has been placed the previous two winters. Mechanical equipment will consist of a blower to maintain the air pressure within the structure and an ice making refrigeration system. The refrigeration system equipment is approximately 25 feet Iong, 8 feet wide and 6 feet high. This is a portable system that will sit on a mobile truck trailer. The refrigeration system is powered by a 200 horsepower electric motor. The refrigeration system uses a freon based chiller /condenser to cool a liquid brine which is circulated through a piping mat under the ice surface. The system is closed and fully self contained. The ice rink facility will be installed on a seasonal basis from October to April. The Seasonal Ice Rink environmental analysis addresses each of the conditions listed in Section 18.56.020, Applicability, of the Vail Zoning Code, as follows: A. Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural land form feature; ❑ The seasonal ice rink will be located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course and will not alter any ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse or other natural land form feature. B. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife habitat, feeding, or nesting ground, ❑ The seasonal ice rink will not affect or impact, either directly or indirectly, any wildlife habitat, feeding or nesting ground. C. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover; ❑ The seasonal ice rink is proposed to be located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course. A portion of the driving range, roughly Is equivalent to the 225' x 125' footprint of the seasonal structure has rpacrinal Trr Rink Prnnntal In previously been regraded to create a level surface. A concrete footer system to anchor the structure has been installed within the driving range site. Each fall, in order to install the structure, and turfgrass will be removed, the footer structure exposed and sand bedding will be placed for the piping system. In the spring, upon dismantling the structure and preparing the driving range for use the sand bedding will be removed and the turfgrass will be replaced. D. Affects the appearance of character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features; Q The ice rink proposal entails the placement of a seasonal structure on the Vail Golf Course Driving Range. The structure will be in place from November until April of the winter season and will be a 225' x 125' white fabric air supported donne. It is the belief of the applicant that the white color of the building blends well with the winter conditions of the driving range and will not be in marked contrast with the natural or existing urban features. E. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety; Li The proposed use should not increase any natural hazard conditions, and does not change any land forms that would result in a hazard to health and safety. F. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter; L3 The ice rink will not discharge any toxic or thermally abnormal substances, does not involve the use of herbicides or pesticides, and does not emit smoke, gas, steam, dust or other particulate matter. G. Involves any process which results in odor that may be objectionable or damaging; 0 Craennal ira Rink Prnrvwcal Y 1 C. ❑ The ice rink will not produce any odor that may be objectionable or damaging. H. Requires any waste treatment, cooling or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site; ❑ The ice rink will not require any waste treatment, cooling or settlement ponds or require transportation of liquid or solid wastes to a disposal site. I. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes; ❑ The proposed ice rink will not discharge significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes. The Vail Golf Course Clubhouse restroom facilities will be available to the ice arena users. The ice surface will be maintained by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine. This machine scrapes off and collects the top surface layer of ice and applies hot water to the freshened surface. The collected snow and ice flakes will be deposited outside. This snow deposit will melt away with the spring thaw. J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or planned sewage disposal, storm drainage, or other utility systems; ❑ The seasonal ice rink proposal will not create any strain to the capacity of the existing infrastructure. K. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging; ❑ The mechanical system of the proposed ice rink will generate some noise, however, sound readings conducted by the Town of Vail while the mechanical system was in operation two years ago indicated that the noise level was below the background noise levels of Interstate 70. Specific readings taken by Town of Vail staff indicate that the noise level 16 feet north of the mechanical equipment (towards I -70) CRacnn:41 Tre Rink Prnnncal 1 '1 r registered at 64 dB. At a distance of only 10' north of the equipment with a shield in place between I -70 and the noise meter the noise level registered at 48 -50 dB. At the property line of the nearest residential property, the Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, the sound meter registered 55 dB. Staff notes indicate that the noise of the mechanical equipment was not audible over the noise generated by 1 -70 traffic. L. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant increase in population; El This proposal will not displace any people nor result in a population increase. M. Pre -empts a site with potential recreational or open space value; ❑ The stated intent of this proposal is to increase the viability of an existing recreational site. is N. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs; ® The operation of the enclosed ice rink will result in a minor increase in traffic. However, the increased traffic generated by the enclosure of the existing ice surface will remain significantly below the summer traffic associated with the golf course use. The traffic generation of the last two winter seasons has not created congestion on the public road system that serves the site. O. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this section. ❑ This proposal is not a part of any larger project. Caacnna1 1rp Rink Prnnnca! r 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY Existing Conditions The proposed seasonal ice rink project entails enclosing and mechanically refrigerating an existing seasonal outdoor ice skating surface that is located on the Vail Golf Course Driving Range. The driving range is an approximately 3.5 acre area located immediately adjacent to the existing Vail Golf Course Clubhouse and parking lot on Vail Valley Drive. The range is a flat turfgrass field and is enclosed by a tall fencelnetting system that contains errant practice shots. The driving range area has been utilized for several years as a seasonal outdoor skating rink. The ice surface is laid out over packed snow and maintained by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine. The ice is enclosed by hockey boards and the rink area includes a lighting system which allows evening use. The clubhouse functions as a garage for the Zamboni and as a skate changing and warming but for the ice rink. In the fall of 2000, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a two -year period to install and operate the seasonal structure. The proposed structure under review of this environmental analysis has been in operation on the proposed site for the past two winter seasons. The golf course is also used seasonally as a Nordic skiing venue, with a set track along the fairways and with the clubhouse functioning as the Nordic center. The golf course clubhouse restaurant remains open in the winter and serves dinner nightly. A sleigh ride operation operates on the golf course, in conjunction with the restaurant. Hydrologic Conditions The enclosure of, and addition of mechanical refrigeration to, the existing ice rink will 0 not change or affect the existing hydrologic conditions of the site. No change to the , 4Qnnal Ine Rink PrnnrkQnl 1 A existing drainage patterns will occur and no significant additional storm water runoff will be created. There will be no impact to any wetland features, riparian vegetation or flood plain. The structure is located outside of the 100 -year flood plain of Gore Creek. Atmospheric Conditions The proposal will not create any additional smoke, steam, dust or .other particulate generation other than the minor contribution of vehicular exhaust due to an increase in local traffic. No wood burning will be associated with the proposed use. Air quality within the Vail Valley is generally quite good and exceeds state and federal standards. No noticeable or measurable degradation of air quality should occur due to this proposal. Noise and Odor The proposed mechanical system includes an electric blower fan to maintain air pressure in the fabric structure and an electric motor to operate the refrigeration system. This mechanical equipment will be located outside of the structure and will be surrounded by a visual screen enclosure. Noise readings taken during operation of the facility over the past two years indicate that the structure is in compliance with the Town of Vail noise ordinance and with the previous condition of approval. However, in order to mitigate potential impacts to residential properties the applicant, the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District will commit to working closely with residents to minimize any noise impacts. Additional mitigation techniques, such as insulating the screen enclosure with sound absorption materials would be effective in minimizing sound impacts, if they are determined to be a nuisance. The addition of the seasonal enclosure and mechanical refrigeration system will not produce any significant odors. CQaennal ira Rink Prr-,nncal { r is Ll Geologic Conditions The driving range is not located in any known geologic hazard area and the addition of a temporary, seasonal air supported structure will not increase or create any geologic hazards. No significant grading is associated with this proposal. Biotic Conditions The driving range, like the remainder of the golf course, is a highly managed turfgrass environment. Any damage to the driving range will be repaired as a part of the standard golf course maintenance operations that occur annually. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation will be impacted by the proposed use. Population Characteristics This proposal will not impact residential densities or neighborhood patterns and will not displace any residents or businesses or otherwise impact population characteristics of the area. Visual Conditions The proposed cover for the skating rink is a 225' x 125' x 36' white fabric air supported dome. The skating rink is visible from 3 primary view shed locations: 1) The Vail Golf Course Townhomes 2) Sunburst Drive residences and 3) Interstate 70 and the Frontage Road. The Vail Golf Course Townhomes are located approximately 500 feet west of the ice rink location, directly across the street from the Vail Golf Course clubhouse parking lot. Although the view of the skating rink will be filtered by the existing, extensive landscaping and is partially screened by the clubhouse, portions of the structure will be visible from some locations within the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. However, the distance from the townhomes will allow the views of the surrounding mountains to remain unobstructed. There are 9 single - family homes along Sunburst Drive that will also view the proposed structure. The closest of these homes is approximately 400 feet from the proposed rink, Cvacnnal 4-P Pinlr Aronncal 14 • the furthest of the 9 homes is approximately 800 feet away. The view of the rink facility from these homes is to the north and northwest. The distance separating the rink from the homes will ensure that the view of the northern hillsides of the Vail Valley will remain unobstructed. The skating rink will block some low -level views of Interstate 70 and the Frontage Road. From the Interstate and the Frontage Road travelers will view the ice skating rink from across the 10th fairway of the golf course, a distance of approximately 500 feet. A set of photographs are included under cover of this report to illustrate the visual, condition of the structure as if existed during the 2000 - 2001 winter season. The ice rink structure is proposed as a seasonal use, from November until April. The white fabric color should blend in well with the background snow cover. A mechanical equipment enclosure will be constructed to provide visual screening and sound muffling for the equipment. Land Use Conditions The Vail Golf Course Driving Range has been used as an outdoor skating rink for several years. The proposal to add a seasonal cover and a mechanical refrigeration system to the existing rink does not represent a major change in land use. The use of the golf course facility for winter recreation presents an efficient use of infrastructure and facilities and is compatible with other officially approved land uses and open space policies. Circulation and Transportation Conditions The ice rink is located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. Vail Valley Drive intersects with the Frontage Road, which functions as the primary collector road in the Golf Course and East Vail neighborhoods. A Town of Vail bus stop is located at the Clubhouse parking lot, approximately 100 feet from the proposed ice rink location. The Vail Golf Course Clubhouse and driving range location is the primary destination for all Vail Golf Course traffic. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Pith %- nQnnal Tri Pink Prnnncnl 1'7 • Edition manual is the standard reference for traffic and transportation analysis. The ITE Trip Generation 5th Edition, page 699, indicates that the trips on a typical Saturday for a golf course range from 375 to 1,300 with the average at 725 vehicular trips. The ITE golf course trip generation chart is attached for reference. According to statistics available from the Vail Recreations District, the management entity for the Vail Golf Course, the course averages a range of 2$S to 320 rounds of golf per day during the summer season. The Vail Golf Course is also host to an active driving range and practice facility, which adds additional daily trip generation. In the winter the Vail Golf Course restaurant remains open for evening meals, the Vail Nordic Center operates out of the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse. The proposal to cover the ice surface and to add mechanical refrigeration should not significantly impact traffic and circulation issues on the Frontage Road or Vail Valley Drive. While the covering and refrigeration of the existing ice rink may create some additional winter traffic to the area the overall winter traffic is anticipated to remain well 10 below the busy summer traffic generated by the Vail Golf Course. The scheduled uses of the Vail Golf Course Rink are generally by the Vail Junior Hockey Association, the Vail Figure Skating Club and the Men's and Women's senior league skaters. These users are generally scheduled from the after school hours (3:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.). During these hours, whether the user is the Vail Junior Hockey Association, the Vail Figure Skating Club or the senior leagues, there are generally 15 - 25 people utilizing the facility at any one time. A typical ice skating or hockey practice session lasts for one hour, so every hour from 3:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. a group of 15 - 25 people will enter and exit the golf course facility. Given the average car pooling and ride sharing associated with these uses it can be fairly anticipated that approximately 10 - 12 cars will enter and exit the Vail Golf Course on an hourly basis from 3:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. For this 7 hour period of use there may be an average of approximately 140 vehicular trips. This trip generation is well below the current level of summer traffic and is capable of moving safely and efficiently on the existing road system. The Vail Golf Course parking lot has approximately 102 parking spaces. This level of parking has been more than sufficient to accommodate the winter uses of the clubhouse and the skating rink for the past two winter seasons. CPacnnal irp Rink PmT%nzn1 10 C] The average parking demand, based upon a typical practice schedule of the Vail Junior Hockey Association is expected to be approximately 15 to 20 cars. Maximum parking demand is anticipated to be 55 to 56 spaces if the rink is used for a game situation. 6.0 CONCLUSION The community need for this facility was established during the 2000 Conditional Use Permit review process and remains valid to this date. The past two years of experience with this Seasonal Structure at the Vail Golf Course location attest that there is a legitimate community need for this facility. The analysis conducted under this application and the two previous years experience with the facility in place have demonstrated the use is compatible with adjacent uses and concerns regarding traffic, parking, noise and visual considerations are mitigated by the design and operation of the facility. • • C.- ARnnal lrp Rinir Pnnnncal in LI c: Golf Course (430) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs; Holes On e: Saturday Number of Studies: 12 Average NuMber of Holes: 19 Directional Distribution, 50% entering, STI. exiting' rip Generation per Hole Average Rate Ravage of Rates Standard Deviation 40.63 16.00 - 70.83 17.7 uata riot aria Ecivation 1-MO 1,200 1,100 1,000 90O Ui F SOD m (7 790 m oix% } Q `II F 400 3w 2DO X _.. �... .. .. -- - - . - - - • - - - -- - - - " -- . ...- - - - - -. .. . ... .. .• _ __ toO - I � I - I - I , I - I - I - 1 1 1 - , 1 1 - I I 8 10 13 12 73 14 i5 16 17 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z 29 27 X = near Of MOWS x Actuar Oats Part Fitted Cwvo Equatiom Not given - - -" " Avwt3tge 11aty Trig Genleratlonr, 6th Edition 699 anstArte of Trenworta" Engineers X19- 15 -z10M 10.51AM WI 926 3390 P.05 Land Use: 430 Golf Course Description The golf courses contained in this land use inchjde 9 -, 16 -, 27- and 36 -hale municipal courses and private country clubs. Some sites have dri;v°irrg ranges and clubhouses with .a ,pro shop and/or restaurant, loungp—I and banquet facilltles. Many of the municipal courses do not have any of these facilities. Miniature golf aourse (land use 431), gaol! drfvirig range (land use 432). and rrmuht purpcnn recreational facility (land use 435) are related uses. Additional Data The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the raid -1990s throughOut the United States. Most of the facilities were [cc ted in suburban areas; a few were in scenic, rural area_--. Source Numbers 7, 11, 12. 13, 18, 99, 142, 214. 378. 407, 44G Trip Gerie.ration. btfi Edition 676 Institute of Transportation Engins9rs 051� -15 -2000 10-50M 970 42s 32,31.90 P. 02 • • • • Ll f =NMI 4-a Lo pip cd AIN cz$ f ' ,r I t F fr' # �� a • T �e r� ct ILA i 1 + 'j"' t r. 0 • 7 • • re, ;-i ct :!1 U d O AA It �"x s ` Al i�5Y n i e z *f' t ? ..� • yam' ryy� �•"� � 1 x r `. jj— z � y e � 11- Ilk • r1 m %WE man KI&O-m-m MWIN AN N Pg ..'rue- 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ;AP ... ........ ...................... IT rj w"d 'Ideal-Ibr- Sports and Recre'i y' tyl 29 Construction Site CdWWsMUustfiaf and Military 41, YEADON" STRUCTURES ARE CUSTOM DESIGNED TO CUSTOMER'S SPECIFIC NEEDS Over 30 years experience in the Air -Sup- ported Structure Industry, has earned Yeadon"' the reputation as the industry leader in quality and technology. Our state of the art, energy efficient struc- tures incorporate the latest innovations in design, anchoring, mechanical and electrical systems. YeadonO structures meet and exceed industry standards including Air Struc- tures Design and Standards Manual ASI, ASCE, GSA CAIN -5109, NFPA 701, UBC, BOCA and are accepted by most building codes for permanent and temporary uses. YEADONO R -PLUS INSULATED STRUCTURES REDUCE ENERGY COSTS Yeadon's R -Plus insulated structures use glass fibre insulation installed in the liner cavity, to reduce the energy costs of air conditioning and heating. Our air conditioned structures feature demand bi -levei zone cooling using our unique suspended ducting system to provide minimum air stratification. Yeadon R- Plus structures are ideal for warm cli- mates where exposure to damaging UV rays from the sun endangers players, and for cold climates to reduce heating energy costs. YEADON`R' USES ONLY THE HIGHEST QUALITY FABRICS FOR MAXIMUM LIFE SPAN YeadonO uses only the highest quality heavy duty vinyl coated polyester Archi- tectural Fabrics for its structures. Fab- rics are flame resistant with a 10 year pro -rated warranty. They provide high tensile and tear strength, exceptional stability under load. and maximum resis- tance to acid and chemicals. We offer a variety of colours and weights of fabric. Top coated finishes such as Acrylic and Dupont Tedlar® coating give maximum UV and dirt protection which extends the life and enhances the aesthetics of our structures. PACIFIC CLUB, HONG KONG YEADON'S DIELECTRIC Air- conditioned Tennis Structure; WELDED CONSTRUCTION Kowloon, Hong Kong GIVES MAXIMUM STRENGTH Dielectric welding of the fabric using Radio Frequency is recognized as the highest and most dependable standard for seaming vinyl fabrics. It creates a strong, dependable bond (weld) which is stronger than the fabric. We dielectrically weld 100% of the structural seams in Yeadon's structures to insure complete integrity. Yeadon(R) uses state -of- the -art high efficiency process which efficiently reduces handling and produces the highest quality seaming. GREEN VALLEY ATHLETIC CLUB'S new insulated four -court tennis structure, Henderson, Nevada, U.S.A. WIDESPAN STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED WITH A CABLE REINFORCEMENT FOR ADDED STRENGTH YeadonO widespan structures use steel wire cable- reinforcement system carry aerodynamic and inflation loads from the membrane to cable anchors. Cables are corrosion resistant, linked to the membrane by sleeves, and are con- tinuous from anchor to anchor. Our computer designed specifications for each individual cable- reinforced struc- ture assures the most efficient and aes- thetically pleasing design solution. YEADON'S ANCHORING SYSTEM IS AIRTIGHT, LOW -COST AND EASY TO INSTALL. Not only is our extruded aluminum channel anchoring system the most air - tight, and water - resistant base attachment available, but it makes Yeadon® the fastest and easiest structures ever devised for seasonal put ups and take downs. leis system employs an extruded anodized aluminum channel cast into a concrete beam which provides an air - tight, water resistant seal without mechanical penetration of the fabric. Yeadon's base channel uniformly trans- fers fabric stresses to the grade beam, eliminating stress points common to conventional bolted angles or catenary anchoring systems. AUGSBURG COLLEGE, MN_ Covers Anderson - Nelson Athletic Field Approximately 216'x 360'x 60'H FOR MAXIMUM SAFETY, ALL YEADONO STRUCTURES HAVE BOTH PRIMARY AND STANDBY MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Each system provides full design inflation pressure to the structure. Our primary inflation system is most often incorporated into a high efficiency heating unit. Custom designed units come equipped with motorized remote controlled dampers to allow for opera- tion at the most efficient pressure. Thermostatically controlled temperature insures maximum comfort. Although natural gas is usually the most econom- ical fuel, we can supply furnaces for oil, propane, electricity or steam. Exterior of GREEN VALLEY ATHLETIC CLUB The standby ( secondary) system is a with finished landscaped periphery. specifically designed fan driven by an engine, powered by natural gas, . propane or diesel fuel. The system will start automatically in the event of a power failure to maintain pressure in the structure. The standby system also has an electric motor which starts auto- matically when low pressure is detected in the structure. For large structures, generators are often added for additional protection. The units are weatherized, highly reliable proven components, which meet Yeadon's rigid standards of quality and reliability. REVOLVING DOORS FOR PEDESTRIANS ARE STRONG, ATTRACTIVE, EASY TO USE Each unit is modular, designed and built to withstand continuous and heavy traffic. Doors are of reinforced aluminum construction with roller bearings, pivots for smooth, safe, trouble -free operation. Doors are supplied with tempered glass windows and equipped with push bars air seals and dead bolt key lock. The base tread is an aluminum "non- slip" plate. EMERGENCY EXITS MEET ALL BUILDING CODES Yeadon'L', provides high quality wide balanced emergency doors structurally independent of the air structure. The frames are steel and the doors aluminum. Each door is equipped with panic hardware and supplied with an exit light package. AIRLOCK PASSAGEWAYS ALLOW FOR EASY ACCESS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS YeadonO vehicle airlocks allow forklifts, railroad cars, ice - making machines trucks and tractor trailers, as well as pedestrian and handicapped traffic to enter and leave the structure safely and quickly. These covered passageways are con- structed with a rigid metal frame and are fitted with mechanical or electrically operated roll -up doors_ Automated door controls and special entrances for conveyors or gravity feeds are also available. f YEADON'S ANCHORING SYSTEM IS AIRTIGHT, LOW -COST AND EASY TO INSTALL. Not only is our extruded aluminum channel anchoring system the most air - tight, and water - resistant base attachment available, but it makes Yeadon® the fastest and easiest structures ever devised for seasonal put ups and take downs. leis system employs an extruded anodized aluminum channel cast into a concrete beam which provides an air - tight, water resistant seal without mechanical penetration of the fabric. Yeadon's base channel uniformly trans- fers fabric stresses to the grade beam, eliminating stress points common to conventional bolted angles or catenary anchoring systems. AUGSBURG COLLEGE, MN_ Covers Anderson - Nelson Athletic Field Approximately 216'x 360'x 60'H FOR MAXIMUM SAFETY, ALL YEADONO STRUCTURES HAVE BOTH PRIMARY AND STANDBY MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Each system provides full design inflation pressure to the structure. Our primary inflation system is most often incorporated into a high efficiency heating unit. Custom designed units come equipped with motorized remote controlled dampers to allow for opera- tion at the most efficient pressure. Thermostatically controlled temperature insures maximum comfort. Although natural gas is usually the most econom- ical fuel, we can supply furnaces for oil, propane, electricity or steam. Exterior of GREEN VALLEY ATHLETIC CLUB The standby ( secondary) system is a with finished landscaped periphery. specifically designed fan driven by an engine, powered by natural gas, . propane or diesel fuel. The system will start automatically in the event of a power failure to maintain pressure in the structure. The standby system also has an electric motor which starts auto- matically when low pressure is detected in the structure. For large structures, generators are often added for additional protection. The units are weatherized, highly reliable proven components, which meet Yeadon's rigid standards of quality and reliability. REVOLVING DOORS FOR PEDESTRIANS ARE STRONG, ATTRACTIVE, EASY TO USE Each unit is modular, designed and built to withstand continuous and heavy traffic. Doors are of reinforced aluminum construction with roller bearings, pivots for smooth, safe, trouble -free operation. Doors are supplied with tempered glass windows and equipped with push bars air seals and dead bolt key lock. The base tread is an aluminum "non- slip" plate. EMERGENCY EXITS MEET ALL BUILDING CODES Yeadon'L', provides high quality wide balanced emergency doors structurally independent of the air structure. The frames are steel and the doors aluminum. Each door is equipped with panic hardware and supplied with an exit light package. AIRLOCK PASSAGEWAYS ALLOW FOR EASY ACCESS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS YeadonO vehicle airlocks allow forklifts, railroad cars, ice - making machines trucks and tractor trailers, as well as pedestrian and handicapped traffic to enter and leave the structure safely and quickly. These covered passageways are con- structed with a rigid metal frame and are fitted with mechanical or electrically operated roll -up doors_ Automated door controls and special entrances for conveyors or gravity feeds are also available. AMERICAN FORK FITNESS CENTER Y American Fork City, UT YEADON'" STRUCTURES ARE .approximately 128'x 193'x 3T H EASY TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN YEADON" STRUCTURES CAN EASILY BE ATTACHED TO PERMANENT BUILDINGS Many projects require the attachment of the air structure to a fixed, permanent building. Yeadon' can assist in the design of transition curtains to meet the most difficult building code and site conditions. TILT TYPE & SUSPENDED LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE THE ULTIMATE IN SPORTS LIGHTING Yeadon's tilt type fixtures are prewired and mounted on steel stands for easy maintenance. All units complete with 1000 watt metal halide lamps, reflectors, guards, ballasts, and twist -lock connec- tors. Yeadon's reflective lighting systems provide an even, glare -free and pleasant level of lighting for all sporting activity. We also offer suspended lighting systems where existing codes accept such systems. CITY OF WATERLOO, MEMORIAL ARENA Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Approximately 120'x 240'x 36' Most equipment used in the operation of an air structure is automatic and designed for easy maintenance and operation, even in severe climatic conditions. Yeadon's clear and easy to read manuals outline all inspection, service and maintenance procedures required to keep your air structure in good condition. Yeadon® offers optional: automatic wind sensing controls which can be integrated into a total energy management system. Should emergency service be required, Yeadon" offers a 24 hour Hot -Line service for most U.S.A. and Cznad4an, destinations- We are known for our after -sale service. YEADON9 PROVIDES TECHNICAL SUPPORT 0 THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF YOUR STRUCTURE Yeadon® provides a complete range of engineering and technical support for its custom designed fabric structures including: • Complete design and specifications • Planning feasibility studies • Construction advice and consultation • Product designs and improvements • Preparation of tender and bid pack- ages including pre -site investigations YEADONO WARRANTY GUARANTEES SATISFACTION Materials and workmanship employed in Yeadon" fabric structures have a warranty period of three (3) years against defects in workmanship and materials. Fabric warranties are 10 year, pro -rated for maximum protection. Mechanical heating and electrical equipment warranties are 1 year for parts. Yeadon's heating equipment is supplieZT with Yeadon° start -up or commissioning Included, and is covered for the first 90 days for all parts and labor. Put a Yeadon Specialist on your Team Yeadon Fabric Domes, Inc. St. Paul, MN 55113 -' (651) 633 -7400 Fax (651) 633 -2019 TOLL FREE: 1- 800 -493 -2366 (4- YEADON) Ilk Yeadon Fabric Structures Ltd, Kerr Industrial Park, R R #3 Guelph, ON Canada N1H 61-19 a (5i9) 821 -9301 Fax (519) 821 -9010 TOLL FREE: 1-888-493-236614-YEADON) YEADON * REG, TRADE MARK OF Yeadon Fabric Domes, Inc. E -mail: yeadDn @yeadon.on.ca Tedlar V REG, TRADE MARK OF E -I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. Web Site: www.yeadon.on.ca YEADON 11/99/2500 ON.-P-MA LO a o of 0 ray /� a) f� V W r m P EE Attachment: D ffl LA 43 a N z o 4 z 2 I a T a E E CL P cam. a C� m p � C E E a U 4 C a E M a (D r A a [3 7 D CL. , "r +` 4 I 0 0 -0 Attachment: E ORDINANCE NO. 28 Series of 2002 6, ij AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 -8113-3 (CONDITIONAL USES), VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR "SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE OUTDOOR RECREATION ZONE DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 12 -2 -2 (DEFINITIONS), VAIL TOWN CODE, TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF "SEASONAL USE OR STRUCTURE," "RECREATION STRUCTURE," AND "RECREATIONAL AMENITY," AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town Cade of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this text amendment at its October 14, 2002, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt these amendments to the Town Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 1 • • L • o1 j if Section 1. Section 12 -85 -3 of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amendedfaslz x follows: (deletions are shown in strike thFo g4/additions are shown bold) 12 -85 -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Accessory buildings (permanent and temporary) and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. Cemeteries. Equestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands. Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings. Seasonal Use or Structure 0 Ski lifts, tows and runs. f�J Well water treatment facilities. follows: Section 2. Section 12 -2 -2 of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as (deletions are shown in stFl a th.-. ughradditions are shown bold) 12 -2 -2: DEFINITIONS: RECREATION STRUCTURE: Any covering erected over a recreational amenity, such , which is not a seasonal structure. For the purposes of this Title, a recreation structure shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure shall require a Genditie it in aGGOrd with GhapteF !6 of this, tifle use peFM is subject to design review. RECREATIONAL AMENITY: An exterior recreation based improvement or facility including, but not limited to, swimming pools, hot tubs, athletic fields and courts, ice rinks, skate parks, golf courses, driving ranges, playgrounds, and other similar amenities. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002 2 L " U SEASONAL_ USE OR STRUCTURE: A temporary covering erected ever a recreational 41S amen,ity , such as _a__gWi.mMiRg-Pr,ni eF }onnic Gn„r}, to accommodate educational, recreational, and cultural activities fBF4ae- 4:RGse Df -ex^9 t, T ase-�intathe -GoId weather-- msatths. Such temporary seasenal -eves coverings may not be in place for more than seven (7) consecutive months of any twelve (12) month period. For the purposes of this Title, a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure �k�11 rnM rc nnn li }inn I i i n nor i} rrnrrl with QhapteF 16 of subject to design review. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. r� Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. r Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002 3 . �-1 Section G. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of October, 2002 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 5th day of November, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor 411 ATTEST: r Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 5" day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 28, Series 2002 4 Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attachment: F October 2, 2002 Town Council C/o Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Cc: Planning Commission Sirs — for certainly no woman would think this one up... 1 am given to understand that there are plans afoot to create a domed ice skating rink in my back yard. OK. We as humans are driven by improvement, and although the old ice skating rink was romantic and served our neighbors well, it was, perhaps a wee bit wild and wooly. But those served by this new edifice are not our neighbors. They are folk from down the road who would be better served by a rink near them. The problems that this new domed rink would cause, is causing, have filled gatherings for the past two years and come down to that bottom line known as the noise and litter of others. I have no problem with my fellow man. I am a proponent of diversity, be it gender, age, class, race, or choice of leisure time diversion. But I have worked hard to earn the lifestyle that lets me reach out to that diversity, and when I want peace and quiet I can stay home and have that too. I don't feel that I need, as per the concept of forced busing, to be careened into the leisure choices of others, especially when those choices eat up mine. An attraction that brings with it lights and noise does not go into a neighborhood that is known for its peace and quiet. It goes down to the Village of Avon where the action is. And know what else? Fewer late night car accidents on the interstate... I got a little riled when I heard of this invasion of the idyllic Golf Course neighborhood. And then I heard the why of this project — because someone didn't manage well the Dobson fix up, and now Dobson must be used for bigger markets and the school skaters must go elsewhere. Money for Vail comes from the philanthropic pockets of places like Sunburst Lane. Isn't there something about biting off the hand that feeds it? Wasn't a big parcel of golf course land given by a resident with the hitch that it be used for out door sport? As I was saying, I got a little riled. And then I heard there is a Part B to this, er, plan: covered golf course so the golfers can play all winter. I want whatever the Town Council's smoking. Life sounds better there. Cordially Celeste Callahan 2039A Sunburst Lane and 1875 Sunburst Lane I , i r 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course. A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson iI. SUMMARY The applicant, Public Service Company of Colorado, is requesting a text amendment to Section 12 -8B -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district located within the Vail Golf Course. Based upon staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the requested conditional use permit and forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Public Service Company of Colorado, is requesting a text amendment to Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district located within the Vail Golf Course. This proposed text amendment and the conditional use permit request are intended to facilitate the construction of a natural gas regulator station at the Vail Golf Course. 49 The purpose of this proposed natural gas regulator station is to increase the supply of I natural gas to the East Vail area to address law pressure and loss of service problems associated with the limited capacity of the existing natural gas distribution system. The proposed natural gas regulator station at the Vail Golf Course will accomodate the installation of a low pressure natural gas line connecting existing utilities at Sunburst Drive to the high - pressure natural gas main located along the south side of the Frontage Road. The proposed natural gas regulator station will consist of the natural gas regulator and its enclosure. The proposed enclosure is an 8 ft. by 6 ft. shed approximately 10 ft. in height. The enclosure had been designed to match an existing well water treatment facility currently located at the Vail Golf Course in design, materials, and color. The applicant's description of the text amendment, conditional use permit, and design review requests have been attached for reference (see Attachment C). Also attached for reference are easement survey drawings, photographs of the site, architectural drawings of the proposed enclosure, Outdoor Recreation zone district maps, and a draft version of Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 (see Attachments D - H). 111. BACKGROUND In October of 1991, the Town Council adopted the "Development Code Revision Report, Phase I." In May of 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission began its review of proposed text amendments prompted by this report to amend the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district and the Public Use zone district, and to create a new outdoor recreation oriented zone district. 0 The initial approach to these code revisions consisted of amending the Public Use zone district and the Natural Open Space zone district, as well as, renaming and amending the Agriculture and Open Space zone district to create a new Recreational Open Space zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission expressed concerns about allowing buildings within zone districts intended for open space, and recommended the elimination of some proposed conditional uses in the Recreational Open Space zone district such as single family residential dwellings, churches, rectories, schools, colleges, convents, seasonal use or structure, etc. The Planning and Environmental Commission also expressed concerns about the impacts that eliminating the Agriculture and Open Space zone district could have on established individual property rights. Upon further deliberation, the Planning and Environmental Commission directed staff not to rename and substantially amend the Agriculture and Open Space zone district to the proposed Recreational Open Space zone district, but instead make amendments to the Public Use zone district and Natural Open Space zone district, and to create a separate recreation oriented zone district and to rezone certain Agriculture and Open Space zone district properties to this new district. This new district was intended to fit between the less restrictive Agriculture and Open Space zone district and the more restrictive Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district. 2 On October 4, 1994, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 21, Series of 9994, to amend the provisions of the Public Use zone district and the Natural Open Space zone district, and to create the Outdoor Recreation zone district. As adopted, the Outdoor Recreation zone district only allowed well water treatment facilities and no other public utility and public service uses as a conditional use. Currently, all Outdoor Recreation zoned properties within the Town of Vail are owned by the Town of Vail. At its October 2, 2002, the design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposed natural gas regulator station. The Board directed staff to "staff approve" the station with the condition that the natural gas regulator station match an existing well water treatment facility currently located at the Vail Golf Course in design, materials, and color. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation of approvallapproval with conditions /denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission 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 deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. Conformance with development standards of zone district. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority of a text amendment or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Councilor by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approval /approval with conditionsldenial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 40 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. Staff : The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. is 4 Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process.. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12 Vail Town Code) The general purposes for Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) are described in Section 12- 1-2, Vail Town Code. Applicable portions of this section include the following: A. General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Based upon Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, the proposed natural gas regulator station is a distribution facility of public utilities and is not defined as a "structure." Therefore, the proposed natural gas regulator station is not subject to many of the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code). The definition of "structure" as prescribed by Section 12 -2 -2, Vail Town Code, is as follows: Structure: Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not including poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the design review board, swimming pools and tennis courts may be exempted from this definition. The Vail Golf Course is zoned Outdoor Recreation (OR). Pursuant to Section 12- 88-1 (Purpose), Vail Town Code, the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district is as follows: The Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. The applicant is proposing to amend Section 12 -813-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Section 12 -16 -1 (Purpose, Limitations), Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. 0 Town of Vail Land Use Plan The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course and many other Outdoor Recreation zoned properties as Park (P). This land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goal statements that staff believes are applicable to this proposal: 6-1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6,3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Ir1 L J 9 • • VI. VII. Vill. Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site as part of the golf course and the Action Plan simply designates the area as an existing "developed park" with no recommendations specific to this site. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Hazards: Development Standard Setbacks: Building Height: Density: GRFA: Site Coverage: Landscape Area: Parking: Outdoor Recreation (OR) Park (P) Golf Course None Allowed Existing NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: CDOT 1 -70 Right -of -Way South: Golf Course East: Golf Course West: Golf Course CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Proposed NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Zoning Unzoned Outdoor Recreation (OR) Outdoor Recreation (OR) Outdoor Recreation (OR) The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -3, Vail Town Code (Ordinance No. 4, Series 2002). A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Text Amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and The general purposes for Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) are described in Section 12- 1-2, Vail Town Code. Applicable portions of this section include the following: 7 A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2 To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff believes that a text amendment allowing a public utility and public service use as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district meets the intent of the above mentioned items by facilitating the construction of effective and efficient utility distribution systems within the Town of Vail. Section 12 -813 -1 identifies the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation District as follows: Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. Staff believes that a text amendment allowing a public utility and public service use as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district will facilitate the effective and efficient distribution of utilities within the Town of Vail which are essential for providing active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses within the Town of Vail. 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 The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course and many other Outdoor Recreation zoned properties as Park (P). The Park land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. Staff believes that a text amendment allowing a public utility and public service use as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district will facilitate the effective and efficient distribution of utilities within the Town of Vail which are essential for providing recreation activities within the Town of Vail. Staff also believes that as a conditional use the Planning and Environmental Commission can ensure that any proposed public utility and public service use is consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan through the imposition of conditions and limitations pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -16 -1, Vail Town Code. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goal statements that staff believes are applicable to this proposal: 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6,3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district meets the intent of the above mentioned items by facilitating utility services that keep pace with increased growth and demand within the Town of Vail. 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 The demands for utilities such as natural gas have continued to increase with time, The existing natural gas distribution system within the Town of Vail was originally constructed in the mid- 1960's and is no longer adequate to meet the community's utility needs. During the 2001 -2002 winter season, the East Vail area experienced periods of low natural gas pressure and losses of natural gas service due to the limited capacity of the existing distribution system. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations in that the proposed revisions to Section 12 -BB -3 are similar to existing use regulations prescribed in other zone districts within the Town. Staff also believes that as a conditional use the 9 Planning and Environmental Commission can ensure that any proposed public utility and public service use is consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan through the imposition of conditions and limitations pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -16 -1, Vail Town Code. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding_a recommendation of approval for of a text 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. The review criteria for a request of a conditional use permit are established by the Town Code. The proposed public utility and public service use is located within the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Therefore, contingent upon adoption of the aforementioned proposed text amendments, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -16 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code. C. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The general purposes for Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) are described in Section 12 -1 -2, Vail Town Code. Applicable portions of this section include the following: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. • 10 10 B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use meets the intent of the above mentioned items by expanding the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the natural gas distribution system within the Town of Vail. Section 12 -8B -1 identifies the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation District as follows: Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use will facilitate the effective and efficient distribution of utilities within the Town of Voil which are essential for providing recreation activities within the Town of Vail. Staff also believes that as a conditional use the Planning and Environmental Commission can ensure that any proposed public utility and public service use is consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan through the imposition of conditions and limitations pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 -16 -1, Vail Town Code. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the Vail Golf Course as Park (P). This land use designation is described by the Town of Vail Land Use Plan as follows: Included in this category are town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf course and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. Once again, staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use will facilitate the effective and efficient distribution of utilities within the Town of Vail which are essential for providing recreation activities within the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan includes the following goal statements that staff believes are applicable to this proposal: I 6.9 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services_ 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use meets the intent of the above mentioned items by facilitating utility services that keep pace with increased growth and demand within the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site as part of the golf course and the Action Plan simply designates the area as an existing "developed park" with no recommendations specific to this site. Therefore, staff believes that this proposed conditional use permit request meets the development objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Staff believes that this proposal meets the development objectives of the Town of Vail, and the objectives of the applicable master plans. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 0 Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use is critical to the effective and efficient distribution of natural gas within the Town of Vail. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that a conditional use permit for the proposed public utility and public service use will have no significant negative impact on the above mentioned items. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The Design Review Board has conceptually reviewed this proposal and directed staff to approval the proposal with the condition that the natural gas regulator station match the water treatment facility on the Vail Golf Course in design, color, and material. Staff believes that this proposal will have no significant negative impacts in comparison to the existing site conditions on the above - referenced criteria, 0 12 0 D. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Ix. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed text amendment to Section 12 -88 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service use" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI II of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the is following findings: 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. The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, at the Vail Golf Course. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony nrosented subject to the followin findin , g gs: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. 13 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions; 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the Town Council's adoption, by ordinance, of the associated proposed text amendment to Section 12- 813 -3, Vail Town Code. 2. The proposed natural gas regulator station shall be relocated west of its proposed location to the west side of the existing gravel Golf Course access drive along the Frontage Road. The applicant shall revise the proposed easement and survey documents, to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail Public Works Department, to address this relocation. X. ATTACHMENTS 0 A. Public Notice D. Vicinity Map C. Correspondence from the applicant D. Easement survey drawings E. Site photographs F. Architectural plans G. Outdoor Recreation zone district map H. Draft Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 C 14 Attachment: A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on October 14, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of "Vail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -813 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2- 2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto, and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3`d Filing within the Vail Golf Course; more specifically described as follows: That part of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6 °h Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the final plat for Sunburst Filing No. 3, recorded in Book 263 at Page 429, in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, said point also being on the northerly right -of -way line of Sunburst Drive, as shown on said final plat; thence the following two courses along said northerly right -of -way line: (1) 119.32 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 135.00 feet, a central angle of 50 138'21" and a chord that bears N72 1)59'22 "W, 115.47 feet; (2) S81 °41'30 "W, 187.43; thence, departing said northerly right -of -way line, N08 °18'30 "W, 266.90 feet; thence N79 °28'56 °E, 939.41 feet; thence S1 1"28'38"E, 91.78 feet; thence S40 1101'19 "W, 490.77 feet; thence S77 °00'32 "W, 165.16 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence, along said northerly line of Lot 3, 148.02 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 189.10 feet, a central angle of 44 050'53" and a chord that bears N65 °08'56 "W, 14427 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6.47 acres, more or less.. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson ,yly TOW OF 1LA L '� A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -88 -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course, more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6'h P.M., Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 3, whence the northwest comer of Lot 1.4 Vail Valley Third Filing bears S07 042'53 "E, 474.77 feet and whence the northeast corner of Lot 16 of said Vail Valley Third Filing bears S26 °20'09 "E, 698.51 feet; thence N56 °01'08 "E, 921.55 feet to a point on the south ROW (right -of -way) line of Colorado State Highway No. 1 -70, said point being the true point of beginning, thence N73 °43'36 °E, along said south ROW line 75.00 feet; thence S16 °16'24 "E, 25.00 feet; thence S73 043'36 "W, 75.00 feet; thence N16 °16'24 "W, 25.00 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 0.04 acres more or less. Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson �.J A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade /Tracts 1 & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther A request for final approval of a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a variance from Section 12 -7A -2 (Permitted Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village is' Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther /Warren Campbell • • A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bell Flower Drive, Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell 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: George Ruther 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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. Community Development Department Published September 27, 2002 in the Vail Daily. 3 0& r7 L -A to Attachment: C Xcel E 7e1'gysm PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Town of Vail Recreation District 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: East Vail Reinforcement Plan Sunburst Drive Gentlemen: Siting and Land Rights 550 15th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 -4256 Telephone: 303.571.7799 Facsimile: 303.571.7877 This past summer Public Service Company of Colorado — "PSCo" approached the Public Works Department in an effort to preview a project to supply additional natural gas service to customers living in East Vail. Last heating season some customers in the East Vail area experienced loss of natural gas service due to low pressure problems. These low pressure problems can be attributed to a number of factors: The East Vail area is on the tail end of PSCo's natural gas distribution system; and PSCo purchased the original gas distribution system in the mid- 1960s. This system cannot deliver the capacity necessary to serve the East Vail area due mainly to the growth in this specific area. The owners in this area are building larger homes with a need for higher volumes of gas to service these dwellings. One option that would increase supply of natural gas in the East Vail area would be to tap an existing PSCo high - pressure gas pipeline that currently parallels Gore Creek on the Vail Golf Course property. There would need to be an above ground regulator station to allow PSCo to increase their pipeline to a 4" diameter. This 4" distribution pipeline would then connect with the existing system thereby providing the natural gas necessary to serve your residents this winter. Due to the sensitive nature of the proposed regulator site, PSCo has taken steps to locate the facilities in an area causing the lease amount of disturbance. Furthermore, PSCo understands the importance of your golf season and will coordinate commencement of operations when the golfing season subsides. Unfortunately, the Outdoor Recreation District does not allow for the placement of above ground public utilities in this specific area. An initial review of the steps necessary for PSCo to propose a Text Amendment to the Town Code would mean waiting until mid - November to receive approval for this project. I send this letter in an effort to inquire if there are any steps that PSCo or the Town of Vail can take to facilitate the Text Amendment and move the approval of this project in the early part of October. PSCo realizes the need for the Town 'of Vail to control the growth and architectural integrity of the buildings in this area. However, this may be a circumstance whereby the people of the East Vail area benefit by the expedience of your approval of the project. We realize we are delivering this letter in conjunction with PSCo's submittal of the Application for Design Review, the Conditional Use Permit, and the Proposed Text Amendment. However, any assistance you may provide to facilitate the approval of this project would be greatly appreciated. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please contact me at (303) 233 -8700 should you have any questions or need additional information. Very truly yours, i- Service Company of Colorado J. Wilkie` - Ming Agent- Siting and Land Rights cc: Al Morganfield 0 *0 Xcel EnergysM PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY September 12, 2002 Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81057 RE: Application for Zoning Code Amendment Request for Revision of 12 -8B -3: Conditional Uses Gentlemen: Siting and Land Rights 550 15th Street, suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 -4256 Telephone; 303.571.7799 Facsimile: 303.571.7877 Please accept this letter and the accompanying Application for Zoning Code Amendment for your review of the same. Public Service Company of Colorado "PSCo" requests the Revision of Chapter 12 -813 -3 to include the language "Public Utility and Public Service Uses ". PSCo submits this Application due to the increase in demand of natural gas use in the East Vail. area. PSCo proposes to build a regulator station and tap into their existing high pressure gas line running adjacent to Gore Creek. Then, PSCo would construct a 4" low pressure underground natural gas distribution line to their existing distribution line located on Sunburst Drive. I have attached a drawing to assist you in locating the approximate path of the proposed Regulator Station and pipeline. PSCo has worked with the Vail Recreation District to locate the proposed facilities in areas that will have the least amount of disturbance. PSCo will not cut the existing 1 -70 frontage road. PSCo plans to construct a Regulator Station that will adhere to the current architectural integrity of existing buildings on the golf course. Construction will not affect the home owners in the area and the pipeline will follow an existing golf course service road or cart path. r Town of Vail September 12, 2002 Page 2 PSCo's other option would be to place the Regulator Station near the junction of the I -70 Frontage Road and the beginning of Sunburst Drive. Construction of the pipeline at this location would be extremely disruptive to those people that live on Sunburst Drive or that utilize the golf course or trails in this area. PSCo would have to road cut Sunburst Drive and cause traffic disturbances. Last heating season some customers in the East Vail area experienced loss of natural gas service due to increased growth and gas loads. The new construction in this area in conjunction with the size and natural gas needs of the homes has rendered the capacity of the 1960 distribution system somewhat ineffective. This Zoning Code Amendment would allow PSCo the ability to deliver the natural gas required by the Town of Vail residents. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Should you need additional information, please contact the undersigned at 303/233 -8700. Very truly yours, PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO dre J. Wilkie Consulting Agent - Siting and Land Rights AJW /jm Enclosures • • Xcel Energy - PUBL[C SERVICE COMPANY September 12, 2002 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission Conditional Use Permit Public Service Company of Colorado East Vail Reinforcement Project Gentlemen: Siting and Land Rights 550 15th Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 -4256 Telephone: 303.571.7799 Facsimile: 303.571.7877 Pursuant to the submittal requirements for a conditional use permit the following comments address those issues raised by the Town of Vail in order to issue such permit: • Public Service Company of Colorado, "PSCo ", purposes to construct an above ground regulator station located in the SW /4 of Section 3, TSS, R80W. The regulator station will tap into an existing high- pressure natural gas pipeline owned by PSCo. PSCo will then install a buried 4" low- pressure natural gas distribution pipeline that will connect with an existing low - pressure pipeline presently located in Sunburst Drive. The proposed regulator station will be small in size (8' x 6') and approximately 10' in height. PSCo will take the necessary steps to use materials that are consistent with other buildings found on the Vail Golf Course. An Application for Design Review will be submitted to the Town of Vail in conjunction with this Application. • The relationship and impact to the Town of Vail will be of great benefit. Currently, the natural gas service in the East Vail area is inadequate due to an increase in growth and gas loads. The addition of a 4" pipeline will provide the necessary service for current homes and future development in the East Vail area. • Due to the remote area of the golf course that the regulator station will be located, the effect on light, air, and other public facilities will be extremely minimal. The fact that the 4" pipeline will be buried below the frost line in an area of existing service roads or cart paths is evidence of our goal to disturb as little of the surface as practicable in this area. • Effects upon traffic will be minimal. The site where the proposed regulator station will be constructed is adjacent to the 1 -70 frontage road at an existing service entrance to the golf course. This location will provide PSCo the ability to construct the facility with no road cut of the I -70 frontage road. The proposed location will allow convenient access to the Vail Fire Department in the event of an emergency. A PSCo employee using a standard size pick -up monitors the regulator station. An increase in traffic after this facility is built is basically non- Town of Vail September 12, 2002 Page 2 existent. Since the facility is on the current PSCo high- pressure easement on golf course property, snow removal, parking and traffic flow are not of concern. PSCo is planning to construct the facility and install the pipeline with as little disturbance to the existing golf course as practicable. PSCo does not plan to change the grade or contour of the existing topography. The pipeline will cross Gore Creek, however, PSCo will hang the pipeline from an existing cart bridge. The creek crossing will not include boring the creek bottom or affecting the flood plain in any manner. The construction of the pipeline and regulator station will not encroach or affect any wetlands. PSCo will practice customary erosion control when working near water in a sensitive area like the Vail Golf Club. Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing our Application for a Conditional Use Permit. Hopefully this project will benefit the Vail Valley and its residents. Very truly yours, Public Service Company of Colorado Andre J. Wilkie Consulting Agent — Siting and Land Rights cc: Al Morganfield 40 • • S- P -13 -02 03:44P Attachment: D P.03 W N r] co N o N w N r f p �p N � N O f = Qf W N w m m po 4 ,7 CO �}+'7 Ln 4V pR j co AGp (A eti� �� U. p W N r N '0-0 N p SCV cq [[nn 77cc tVN M cn a M1 W z Z w °` V W a' 0 v c'aA ii z W �+ r) `arb ky `" re of no _tn O G z -o m �' LO I YQ 91 V, N w W 04 N V O Z Fv m O m— rn Z G Z ,L F~q t1i o �U, 00 m Q 9 � wig n d ' J ` R 17 b +f1 O Z u] d 0. Q to w u ° o W Ir co s v 1� MH ;; o Lei rC c Z n C)'* U ° v _M1 M1 M1 P Y} W v] 0 `tiu0 �8 Qq r4 + EO z 8 - rl z ►� `� ZN3a �� J W an N V7 p o # Z V O r�i o � � 60 �o 10 Z M1 w :7 Y kJURVEYING COMPANY P.O. BOX 1153 MEEKER, CO 81641 Phone (970) 878-5292 Fax (970) 878-5392 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY -70 CAST VAEL - 411 LATERAL "0. SAY 5ECIT31'.iS 3 & 10, TSS, R90W OF THE 6TH p_m sC-LE: *'-790' T07-L LXNG1. — 16.17.72- "'!E-st — mr, Page 2 of 2 DuRst JsC, INC. 9/6/2002 JOB NO. 1088-83 r. - is A ,! PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY EAST VAIL METER STATION IN SECTION 3, T5S, R80W OF THE 6TH P.M. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO tAa 3.43' 30 ul INFERS TELE. ROW FENCE RISER O BRACE POST �+ EXISTING CD o p� tic OF -r >Y GAS �, �r'W LINE �- -7'43 3 20' WESTERN SLOPE GAS COMPA EASEMENT (GRAVEL) GOLF 6',•GtiG CART PATH SW SECTION T5S. R801N 6TH P-M. / c p N (ASPHALT) GOLF CART PATH SPRINKLER HEAD POUND 1" STEEL EAR SET IN CG14CRETE (GRAVEL) GOLF CART PATH GOLF COURSE 7,5' GAS LINE 7.5' EASEMENT SCALE: I "m50' NW LOT 14 VAIL VALLEY 0 uL, SPRINKLER CONTROL BOX �y ^+E T 16 3RD FILING PAGE 2 OF 2 El JSC, INC. JOB NO: 1088 -83 DATE: 9 -4 -2002 REVISEO:9 /10/02 (TIE TO PCE) \a\GNWPY TELL. ROW FENCE RISER BRACE POST GA S SINE �r y 1;?,o , Ji �4-7 4 0 dare- Q � .oa ,, .57-p,, s,TE 577 pipeline Easement (GRAVEL) GOLF CART PATH (ASPHALT) GOLF CART PATH ';PPINKI FP HF EAST VAIL ME'T'ER STATION 0 Puricserv" �of cdoroclo SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP py y RANGE e�O y(% i SCALE: I ", f5' G-r-W PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ��, COUNTY, COLORADO DRAWN BY: A PLAT NO. DOCUMENT NO. DATE; q -I(, - d • 11 Attachment: E ��r z • , § �§ 7 | ( Attachment F | 2, ■| q (| �� �§ 2 0 � � � � � w � % 2 C � � � W � Li III 0 s § || ` | ( / \ / 2H |§ ■�!§ � I\ �! | � ) k Q § || ` | ( / \ / 2H L M FL J- z U � � � � � � U � M 7 U � � Li I w � 2 U � � � 0 L-1 �l � 4f ! . � . | , . ; | | � |� ��. \«\ � � � /�/ \ ■ ■ � \ 2 � ���: � d ■ �. \- .i | ■� � � � � . | .§ |§ | | |� ■ � . .| |& �. . . �l � 4f ! • 0 • gran •E Ft. i r � E i a x U 2 F{1 Attachment: G w w a cr z 0 z I ik •1 . 1 J d .1 .1 •1 - J • � `I I J 1 f 1 •t 1 7 ' 1 •1 • .1 1 •1 O��r� �- 1 .i � •1 J c CL fl C E E O u O C C7 E r LC QY 61 L A d U Q. LO o yay_ ir.. O .Co M #, E i a x U 2 F{1 Attachment: G w w a cr z 0 z I ik •1 . 1 J d .1 .1 •1 - J • � `I I J 1 f 1 •t 1 7 ' 1 •1 • .1 1 •1 O��r� �- 1 .i � •1 J c CL fl C E E O u O C C7 E r LC QY 61 L A d U Q. Attachment: H ORDINANCE NO. 29 Series of 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 -813-3 (CONDITIONAL USES), VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR "PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES" AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE OUTDOOR RECREATION ZONE DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this text amendment at its October 14, 2002, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, The Town Council has determined that the prohibition of public utilities and public service uses within the Outdoor Recreation .zone district within the Town of Vail poses a risk to the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt these amendments to the Town Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 • L J 0 follows: Section 1. Section 12 -813 -3 of the Vail Town Code shall hereby be amended as (deletions are shown in stroke- thfougWadditions are shown bold) 12- 813 -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Accessory buildings (permanent and temporary) and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. Cemeteries. Equestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands_ Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings, Public utility and public service uses 0 Ski lifts, tows and runs. Well water treatment facilities. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds„ determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Ordinance fro. 29, Series 2002 2 Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED is PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 151h day of October, 2002 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 5h day of November, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 40 0 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 5 "' day of, C: • November, 2002. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 29, Series 2002 4 Ludwig Kurz, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a text amendment to Sections 12 -71-1-11 & 12- 71 -11, Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for building constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The Department of Community Development is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the proposed text amendment intended to clarify the height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district, as further described in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed language has been prepared in response to the input staff received from the Planning and Environmental Commission is at their worksession meeting on September 9, 2002, II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Department of Community Development has requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission review an administrative interpretation of the maximum height calculation for structures constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. Staff's request is in response to recent discussions regarding the calculation of the average maximum height from which staff has concluded that further clarification is necessary to ensure that the intent of the regulation has been met. Specifically, staff recognized that there are multiple methods of measuring average maximum height and numerous questions about how to implement the height calculation. Section V of this memorandum outlines these methods and questions in greater detail. Section VI outlines a possible text amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan with regard to maximum allowable building height. This request is brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review and consideration pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Vail Town Code. Staff recommends that the Commission again discuss this matter as a worksession item and delay any formal recommendation to the Vail Town Council until a future meeting date. III. BACKGROUND • On December 15, 1998, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master TOWNOF'V 1LL �� Plan. In adopting the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Town Council adopted an average maximum height calculation for improvements constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. The reason, in part, for adopting an average is maximum height calculation was to respond to building height and massing criteria within an already built environment. Unlike development in other areas in town, where maximum building height is calculated based upon existing or finished grade, which ever is more restrictive, redevelopment projects in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district must be responsive to the existing conditions, improvements, and the project's relationship to existing buildings and infrastructure. To address these concerns, it was determined that an alternate means of calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district was necessary. On September 9, 2002, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession meeting to discuss the average maximum height calculation issue for determining building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. Upon discussion of the issue, there was a clear consensus among the Commissioners that further clarification was needed to described and determine the allowable height of buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. What was not completely clear, however, was the methodology that should be adopted. In response to the discussion, the Commission asked staff to return to a future worksession meeting with proposed language that clarified the intent of the regulation, which upon implementation, resulted in buildings that did not exceed 82.5 feet maximum in height with an average maximum building height of 72 feet. A complete copy of the September 9, 2002, approved Planning and Environmental Commission meeting minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment B) IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS is A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions GRADE, EXISTING: The existing grade shall be the existing or natural topography of a site prior to construction. GRADE, FINISHED: The finished grade shall be the grade proposed upon completion of a project. HEIGHT. • The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof or eaves. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof. Section 12 -3 -3 A eats A. Administrative Actions: Any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title E and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. B. Appeal of Administrative Actions: 1. Authority: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation by any Town administrative official with regard to a design guideline shall be heard by the Design Review Board. 2. Initiation: An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order. decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this Title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. If the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the original action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or with the department rendering the decision, determination or interpretation within ten (10) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday., Sunday, or a Town - observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or Commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed, 3 to forward to the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 5. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met. 12- 71-1-11: Height and Bulk: Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71) with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. B. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Staff has reviewed the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plans and believes the following sections are relevant to the review of this request: Section 2.1, Purpose of the Master Plan (in part) This master plan, developed over a period of two year and with extensive involvement by the community, is a comprehensive guide for property owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public improvements, The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives, and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and private properties. 40 Section 2.8 Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Ll The Lionshead Master Plan was adopted by Resolution 14, Series of 1998, on December 15, 1998, by the Vail Town Council following a recommendation to approve by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Future amendments to this master plan must be approved by resolution or motion by the Vail Town Council following a formal recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Implementation activities and ordinances will be approved in accordance with the Vail Town Code. Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines (in part) The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the architectural design of new and remodel projects within Lionshead, along with site planning criteria which relate directly to architecture. Section 8.4.2.3, Building Height (in part) Maximum Heights Maximum height is defined as the distance from existing or finished grade — whichever is more restrictive — to the ridge of the nearest primary roof form to that grade. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint and measuring the vertical distance from the ridge of the highest primary roof form to imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades. Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height for buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof forms in Lionshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Height of a building shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline on primary roof forms. Any amount of primary roof form ridgeline that exceeds 71 ft. must be offset by at least an equal amount of primary roof form ridgeline falling below 71 ft., with the distance below 71 ft. equivalent to or greater than the distance exceeding 71 ft. The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof forms. Additional Requirements/Exceptions All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing principles, shall conform to all established Public View Corridors (see Lionshead Master Plan). Special 'landmark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other unique architectural forms, may exceed the Absolute Maximum Height, subject to approval by the reviewing board This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality of building form, and shall not be used as a means or circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. In addition, regardless of final building height, buildings shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, 5 and shall provide visual interest through the use varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques. V. DISCUSSION ISSUES For the September 9, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff had identified a number of different methods of calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. Depending upon the method of calculation, a project may or may not meet the intent of the average maximum building height regulation. Staff had provided three drawings which helped to illustrate the building height calculations issues. First, Figure 8 -15 was taken from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. t� Fig " -15 Portions oJ'buildin area exceeding j 71 ' must be g1fser kv portions which fall below i n 7l', hip an equivalent amonnt of area. The second set of illustrations indicates the issues which staff had identified with the calculation of average maximum height as outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master flan. These illustrations are attached for reference (Attachments A). As height is measured from an infinite number of points, calculating an average can be difficult. When measuring maximum height, it is relatively simple to determine at what location the highest point of the building is. With average maximum height, because the grade below the building is not at a constant elevation, there are an infinite number of points from which height can be measured. One possible alternate means of calculating may be as follows: 1. Identify the primary roof ridge(s) 2. From the center of the ridge, mark a point at every 10 ft. along the ridge. 3. Measure the height of that point to the nearest grade(s) at the edge of the building. 4. Take the average of the identified points. 5. For each point that exceeds 71 ft., there must be a corresponding point that falls below 71 ft., at an equivalent distance. By taking a height measurement at 10 ft. intervals along the primary roof ridge, staff believes that the intent of the average maximum height calculation may be met. Additionally, this allows for a more systematic and consistent method of calculation for average maximum height. 0 A second method of calculating building height in Lionshead may be to adopt a methodology similar to that used for buildings located in the Commercial Core I zone district. If adopted, the methodology may be similar to the following: 1. No more than 50% of the building coverage area of primary roof forms may be higher than 71 ft. In no instance shall the absolute maximum height of any building exceed 82.5 ft. 2. Up to 50% of the building (building coverage area of primary roof forms) may be built to a height of 71 ft. or less. 3. With this in mind, the average maximum height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. VI. PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Staff is proposing the following amendment to Section 8.4.2.3 (Building Height) of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: (additions to the text are shown in BOLD; deletions to the text are shown in ) Maximum Heights Maximum height is defined/ as toe distance from existing or finished grade —whi hexer -is mere restrrst�ve to the r-r�ige of thr°G- ^T°r1a,Ls t p4ma5e rgofT ,rm te t4at gr the distance measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s). Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 71 ft. Notwithstanding the notion of Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint and measuring ^n r distanse from the riofge of the highe6t primary roof fnr� the distance vertically from rr OltrZlrG fIO G G'1 ;11G 1Il 1rG l r /Tl Tlir "r'tia 7 ©T the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the interpolated existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s). Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the interpolated existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof to the imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades. Calculation of Average Maximum Height The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height for buildings is to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof forms in Lionshead, and thus avoiding continuous, uninterrupted ridgelines. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Height of a building shall be calculated by locating the center point of the primary roof form(s) and then determining the maximum building height of the primary roof form(s) at ten foot intervals along the ridgeline in either direction from the center 40 point. The maximum average height shall be determined by dividing the sum of the maximum building heights at each interval point by the total number of ri VII intervals (see Figure 8 -15). based upon the ipe r feet ge of rdg Iron nn primary reef f,9Fms. Apy amount of pr�mary roof f9an 4dgegne that exGeeds ;z! �t m�4st be offset below 74 4. equAta;ept to or greater- than the diStaRGe 8XGeGding 71 . The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof form(s) across an entire structure, not separate individual primary roof forms. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Listen to a brief staff presentation on the calculation of the average maximum building height for structures built within the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. In addition; staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide clarification and interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district. Staff recommends that the Commission again discuss this and delay any formal recommendation to the Vail Town date. :; matter as a worksession item Council until a future meeting 0 • 0 V quel r 1 0 Attachment: A nd 7�+Y-d 6 �Qd e, Ci5-f . nGZ r� Gib 1 � Llous ,p 01-a8 2Z,I -Y Z-+", LaoZ 1 • i 1 � V :luawy3elld 1 f r 1 f 1 n r a � 0 N � 0 82.. 71 ft. a 50% I 50% � 100 ft. Discussion of Average Maximum Building Height September 9, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission Attachment: A 59.5 ft. • • 0 • • �J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC WELCOME Monday, September 9, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - NO LUNCH Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo MEMBERS ABSENT Cary Hartman George Lamb Approved 9/23102 Attachment: B 1:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave a presentation, per the staff report and stated that staff is looking for clarification and not an amendment to the adopted master plan regarding the calculation of average maximum height. Erickson Shirley stated that it would be helpful for him if staff could break down the request into specific questions the board should answer. George Ruther stated that the overall question was, "How do you measure average maximum building height in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan?" Erickson Shirley asked what were the specific questions which would answer that overall question. John Schofield suggested a question such as the definition of grade and height which were defined already in the Cade. Doug Cahill stated that he read the Master Plan to say as using a plane created by the more restrictive grade and a plum bob be moved around within the footprint of the building. Erickson Shirley believed it was clear that height is defined in the Master Plan as being the distance from the roof ridge and existing or finished grade, which ever is more restrictive and secondly, "The average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an entire structure, not separate individual roof forms." 11 1OWN OF VAIG �, Approved 9123/02 George Ruther stated that he believed it was not that clear. He said he could come up with several ways to interpret the document which would all give different results. Rollie and John agreed that one of the problems was that the drawing is based on a flat site, not on the topography which exists in Lionshead. John Schofield brought up that at the time the Master Plan was being done, he believed that a survey was done through out the Lionshead area, which included multiple spot elevations. He believed if the information was still available it may be beneficial to help substantiate the board's determination. George Ruther stated that he would check to see if it still existed Chas Bernhardt presented a mathematical equation, which took the difference in height from two points on a roof ridge and divided by an interval to be determined. John Schofield suggested that grade should be interpolated under the building to create a plane to measure from. Doug Cahill asked if George Ruther would write that up. Erickson Shirley asked that a drawing accompany it. George Ruther restated the request, in order to clarify what he heard. Chas Bernhardt clarified his variables included in the mathematical equation. He said points along the ridge would be measured over a determined distance step and that difference would be divided bythat distance. Doug Cahill asked if the staff could add that no more than 50 percent of the building height could be at 40 82.5 feet. John Schofield stated that he felt the DRB would never approve some of the buildings as proposed in the staff report, even if they met the letter of the Master Plan. George Ruther stated that he didn't understand, under Chas's proposal, how each segment was handled over the length of the entire roof line. He said each segment would have an average height and then those segments would be averaged together to make sure that the overall ridge height is at an average of 71 feet. The Commission agreed that height should be measured from the most restrictive grade either existing, or finished_ John Schofield stated that he felt that primary ridgeline needed to be defined Doug Cahill stated that dormers were not a primary roof form, but they should be measured for overall height. George Ruther stated that the Master Plan called out dormers as secondary or special architectural features to be considered a primary roof form. John Schofield asked if George Ruther had enough feedback to write something for the next meeting. George Ruther stated that in some cases such as on a steep site, the height of a building could be 40 higher if measured from the eave. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to September 23, 2002. 2 Approved 9123102 Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0_ 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther /Warren Campbell MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane /Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 4. A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct empSoyee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND. Rollie Kjesbo VOTE. 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 5. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV Lot, 395 S. Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1' Filing. Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with Section 12 -8D -6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 5" Filing and 498 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7`r' Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson STAFF APPROVED Affirmed 0 MEMORANDUM Td: 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 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. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Department of Community Development has received an application to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, of the Town Code. Specifically, the application is to eliminate Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as a development standard in the following zone districts: • Single Family Residential, • Two Family Residential, • Two Family Primary /Secondary Residential Districts. The purpose of this worksession is to identify critical issues and discussion items to further evaluate in this application. 111. 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 TOWN OF VAIL i' 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. 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 AttachmentAfrom the 1996 & 1997 GRFA review. At this time, staff recommended eliminating GRFAwhile 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 numerous applications for interior conversions since 1997. However, illegal construction and the creation of illegal floor area continues. In addition, owners with 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 sq. 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 sq. ft. 3,750 + 250 = 4000 sq. ft. • • • Primary: .60 x 4000 = 2400 Primary side gets 60% of the GRFA plus a 2400 + 425 = 2825 sq. ft. 425 mechanical credit Secondary: .4 x 4000 = 1600 Secondary side gets 40% of the GRFA plus 1600 + 425 = 2025 sq. ft. a 425 mechanical credit. Total: 2825 + 2025 = 4850 sq. fL Total GRFA for the entire site. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 11,400 sq. ft. 11,400 x.25 = 2850 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. Primary: 2850 + 425 = 3275 sq. ft. Primary side gets all of the GRFA plus a 4,000 x .10 = 400 425 mechanical credit Secondary: not permitted Not allowed a secondary unit as lot size is 3950 + 250 = 4,200 sq. ft. less than 14,000 sq. ft. Not eligible for second 425 credit. Total: 3275 sq. 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 sq. ft. 16,500 — 12,500 = 4,000 4,000 x .10 = 400 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. 3,125 + 400 + 425 = 3,950 sq. 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 3 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: 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 That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 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. 0 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 flan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and I 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: 4 0 I . 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 -713 states, in part, that, An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be 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 fool 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 may be 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. 5 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. O. 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. 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 may be enlarged; provided, that the parking and loading requirements for such 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 Lane! 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. 40 Goal 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands fora full range of housing types. V1. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A TEXT AMENDEM'NT 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. 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. is 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 crawls 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 • 0 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 60140 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? 0 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 0 • 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 L 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. III. 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: 1) 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 design ers/buiIders)? 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 31 st, 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. r 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 a pro /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 Description Crittcal 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 IDstandards 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 OF VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1996 I. EVALUATION OF VAIL'S GRFA REGULA'T'IONS 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) Toning regulations. This report has been prepared to provide background information to the Town Council, Planning Commission and public as an initial step in the evaluation of the Town's GRFA system and the consideration of alternatives to GRFA. This report provides a general overview of the rationale for regulating building bulk and mass and the zoning techniques commonly used to implement such regulations; summarizes the Town's current system of bulk and mass control; outlines the evolution of the Town's GRFA regulations; assesses bulk and mass regulations of other resort communities; and describes five conceptual alternatives to the existing GRFA system. Three major areas of concern identified by the Town regarding the existing GRFA system that have prompted this evaluation are: I ) 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) Regulation of Interior Floor Space The Town has received a number of comments from the community regarding the appropriateness of the Town regulating the use of interior space within the exterior 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.concems.will be identified by the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process: GRFA ANAL,YSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. I 1) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from the community, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town staff; 2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regtdations which control the size and shape of buildings are necessary; 3) This process will address single - family, duplex and primary /secondary residential development only; 4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable alternative. II. BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a 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 determine 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 provided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensity of use. The Standard Zoning 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 rural character • Preserving solar access to adjacent structures and sites GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 2 • • MECHANISMS FOR CONTROLLING BULK AND MASS Communities utilize a variety of zoning and design regulations to control building bulk and mass in order to achieve specific community objectives. The following summarizes the most commonly used regulations. Although discussed individually, these mechanisms are typically used together in order to create a system of bulk and mass control. Vail's current zoning regulations utilize most of the examples described below. 1 . Lot 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 restrictions typically vary by zoning district. While 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 cave 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 ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY 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 area include enclosed parking, elevator shafts, stairways, attics with head room less than 5 feet, open porches and exterior decks. In some cases multi —story spaces created by vaulted or cathedral ceilings are calculated at a higher rate than other floor area. In other cases basements spaces are not counted as floor area. Maximum Floor Area: - Maximum floor area controls establish an absolute maximum cap on floor area. Minimum Floor Area Ratios - Sometimes used in residential areas to establish minimum floor area per structure to protect against creation of sub— standard dwelling units. 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 quantify multi — story/vaulted spaces such as cathedral ceilings. While this technique represents a more accurate method of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, it is not widely used due to the cost and technology needed to implement this system. 4. Lot Size and Shane Most zoning regulations which address building height and bulk are based on ratios or percentages related to the size of a lot. As such, lot size and shape play an important role in the overall size, bull: and orientation of structures. 5. Design Review Each of the four quantitative standards described above influence the bulk and mass of a building. However, even with these parameters the perceived bulk and mass of a structure depends on a number of other design considerations. The bulk and mass of a structure can be influenced by the placement and relationship of building forms and voids in building facades; the setting, or context of the structure; the proportion and scale of windows, bays, doorways, and other features; shadow patterns; building articulation and offsets; location and treatment of entryways; variations of building height and roof lines; facade details; and the use of materials, finishes and textures. Design guidelines are often used as a complement to quantitative standards to address these types of design considerations. The design review process is 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 and mass of residential buildings utilizes three zoning tools. The Town's definitions of site coverage, building height and CRFA are included at the end of this report. GRFA ANALYSIS /PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 4 • is 1) Site Coverage Maximum allowable site coverage in Vail's single - family, two family and primary /secondary districts is 20% (allowable site coverage is limited to 15% on lots with greater than 30% slope). The amount of allowable site coverage is directly proportional to the size of a lot. For example, on a 15,000 square foot lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and other improvements and on a 10,000 square foot lot only 2,000 square feet of site coverage is permitted.. Site coverage includes the total horizontal area of any building, carport, arcade, or covered walkway as measured from perimeter walls or columns at or above grade and any roof overhang, eave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from the building. 2) Building Height Allowable building height in the single- family, two family and primary /secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build -up or elevate a site. Allowable building heights are uniform in the single - family, duplex and primary /secondary zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot. 3) GRFA The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only. GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number of bedrooms) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces. Maximum allowable GRFA in the single- family, two family and primary /secondary districts is 25 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per unit Is also allowed. The "T'own's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an additional 250 square feet GRFA per unit for structures that are at least five years old. Allowable GRFA is calculated on a graduate scale for lots over 15,000 square feet in size. The ratio of allowable GRFA decreases for larger lots. For example, only 10 square feet of GRFA are permitted for each 100 square feet of lot area over 15,000 square feet. The purpose of this graduate scale is to limit the amount of allowable GRFA on larger lots. Design Review The design review process does not specifically address building bulk and mass issues. Other than a very generic statement in the guidelines that "structures 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 pail 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 IV. EVOLUTION OF VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM The following chronology summarizes the major changes that have been made to the GRFA system over the past 27 years: Ord. 7, 1969 This ordinance enacted the Town's first comprehensive zoning regulation. FAR, or "floor area ratio" was defined and maximum floor 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 buildin hei ht or site covera a limitations. Ord. 8, 1.973 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 other higher density districts. Building Bulk Control established maximum length and off -set requirements for buildings. Ord. 19, 1976 Comprehensive revision to Ord. 8 of I973 which established height definition based on average distance of the finished grade at lowest point, mid -point and highest point of exterior wall; established minimum distances between buildings in various zone districts; established graduated scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximum GRFA for duplex structures of 4,000 square feet. Ord. 30, 1977 0 Reduced allowable densities (allowable units) in most residential zone districts. Ord. 50, 1978 Reduced allowable building height in single- family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to 30'; reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Ord. 37, 198 Modified definition of GRFA by excluding crawl spaces with less than 6' 6" clearance; adding garage credit for single- family, duplex and pis development; definition of height changed to distance between ridge and existing or finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping roofs in single- family, duplex and p/s districts. Ord. 41, 1982 Modified definition of GRFA by establishing definitions for crawl space and attic space, changing the 6' 6" crawl space rule to 5', counting overlapping staircases only once, and adding credits for mechanical space (50 sq. ft.), airlocks (25 sq, ft.), storage (200 sq, ft.), and solar heating rock storage areas. Ord. 4, 1985 Established the "250 ordinance" allowing for additions of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to homes that are at least five years old. 0 GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 6 Ord, 36, 1988 Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwelling involves the "complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof'. Ord. 9. 1291 Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance was denied. Ord. 1.5, 1991 Modified the definition of GRFA by counting the total square footage of all levels of a building including 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% 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 OF OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES The following summarizes how other mountain resort communities regulate the bulk and mass of low- density residential development. This not a scientific survey, rather it is a compilation of case studies which demonstrates the variety of 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 ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 7 Bulb 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. • Building Height Building height is regulated by a guideline that "discourages" homes over two stories. • Desizn Review While not referred to as a design review process, the Town does evaluate site planning and architectural considerations during the review of development in outlying residential areas. Landscaping, building colors and materials, and other zoning considerations (height, driveway grades, etc.) for compliance with adopted standards and guidelines. The bulk and mass of a structure is also considered for proposals that exceed two levels. Other Considerations The Town has averaged 32 permits for new single- family and duplex units in each of the last three years. The average size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single- family development is relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single - family homes involves staff review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council. Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single- family zone districts (RS -I and RS -2). Whistler includes a number of developments approved by "land use contract" (i.e. a Planned Unit Development) which have site specific regulations that often allow more or unlimited floor area in single- family homes. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations Floor area of single - family lots is limited to 325 square meters (3,496 square feet) or 35% of the lot area, whichever is less. A garage credit of 56 meters (600 square feet) is allowed and the definition of floor area includes 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. i GRFA ANALYSIWRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 8 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 "maxed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the Community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature of how floor area is defined. The Town's by -laws do not allow for variance requests to density or floor area. Town of Aspen, Colorado Aspen has experienced a pattern very similar to Vail's with regard to redevelopment within its residential neighborhoods. This analysis pertains to Aspen's Moderate Density Residential Zone district (R -15), 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 25' and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the cave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. Design Review The Town does implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Other Considerations Two years ago the Town went through 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 forms. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 9 Deer Valley Resort, Utah While Deer Valley is located in Park City, development is regulated by the Deer Valley PUD. The City's Residential Development District (RD) provides the underlying zoning, for single - family development at Deer Valley. In many cases the development regulations for subdivisions within Deer Valley vary from the RD standards. For example, in many cases building envelopes supersede setback requirements and building heights may vary on a lot by lot basis depending upon site specific considerations. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations There is no floor area limitation in the RD zone district and many of the early subdivisions in Deer Valley did not include floor area limitations. Recently the Town and developer have worked together to establish maximum floor areas for each newly platted lot. Allowable floor areas vary depending upon site conditions and range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. Floor area includes the area of a building enclosed by surrounding exterior walls and any portion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area calculations. Site Coverage Unless specified by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, there are no site coverage limitations. Most recent subdivisions in Deer Valley include building envelopes for each lot which essentially establish a maximum site coverage area. Building Height Unless specified otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid -way between the eave and ridge. Design Review Both Deer Valley and the 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 to adequately accommodate allowable square footage which on occasion Steamboat Springs, Colorado Residential areas in Steamboat Springs include older "in- town" neighborhoods and newer large -lot subdivisions in outlying areas. The analysis below pertains to the Town's low- density residential zone districts. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Steamboat Spring's low density residential districts. CRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT - Braun Associates, Inc. 10 • • • Site Coverage -There are no site coverage linittaations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. Building Height Building height is limited to two stories or up to three stories if additional setbacks are provided. 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. Beaver Creek Resort, Colorado Development regulations in Beaver Creek are established by the Beaver Creek PUD Guide and are implemented by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board and the Eagle County Community Development Department. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creek does not limit the floor area of single - family homes. • Site Coveragge Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within platted building envelopes. Building Height Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid -point between the ridge and eave at various points around a building. This averaging systems has allowed for portions of buildings to exceed 35' by significant margins. Beaver Creek recently amended building regulations to limit the absolute height of a building to no more than 50'. Design Review Beaver Creek has a very involved design review process which specifically address building bulk and -mass. Other Considerations Beaver Creek is certainly known for its large single - family homes and the resort's development regulations encourage this type of development. While the lack of floor area limits may be a factor GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 1 t in the size of homes that have been built in Beaver Creek, a more direct factor is probably the way building height is measured, Beaver Creek's method of averaging building height allows for very large building mass on one or more elevations of a building. Sun Valley, Idaho Sun Valley is predominantly a second -home community with much of the local population residing in either Ketchum or Haley. Residential development trends in Sun Valley have been quite similar to Vail, Aspen and other Colorado resort communities. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts. • Site 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 2,842 square feet of site coverage (18.9 %). • Building Height 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. VI. 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 are 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 0 • Conceptual Alternative #1 - No Action Description of Alternative This alternative would leave the existing GRFA system in place. No changes would be made to allowable GRFA or the definition of GRFA. Objective of Alternative Accept the three identified issues as "givens," and continue with the existing system. Zoning 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 Conceptual Alternative #2 - "Conversion of Interior Space" Description of Alternative Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be 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 systern. 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 - lirnit 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 • • 0 Conceptual Alternative #3 - Elimination of GRFA /Addition of Design Guidelines Description of Alternative This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulls and mass of single- family, duplex and primary /secondary buildings. GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two units. With this amendment the bulk and mass of single - family and duplex development would be controlled by site coverage and building height only. In order to provide assurances to prevent the development of large, non- descript boxes, this alternative would also include new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off -sets, scale, etc. Objective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to address each of the three issues identified with the current GRFA system. This alternative would place the burden of controlling bulk and mass on site coverage, building height and design guidelines. Zoning Implications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 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 address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Elimination of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maximize site coverage and buildinb height, resulting in large/box -like structures. • Eliminating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts on adjoining properties. • Site coverage would become the primary limiting factor for controlling building size, with the elimination of 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 ANALYSISJPRI- LIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 15 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 Alternative The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e, space below grade). Zoning Implications This alternative would not create conflicts with other sections of the zoning code. Response to Three Identified Issues Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations This alternative would indirectly create additional allowable GRFA for many properties. Basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA would no longer be considered GRFA under this alternative, thereby creating new GRFA that could be utilized above grade. GRFA ANALYSI5IPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 16 • • • • Conceptual Alternative #5 - Volumetric Contro l 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 Implications With the elimination of GRFA, some alternative method for calculating required parking and determining the 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 utilize such a system. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 17 Attachment 2 Issues with Current GRFA System ffectiverress of GRFA as a Means for Controlling Building- Size • Mixed opinions as to whether GRFA is an effective bulk and mass control • General agreement that GRFA is less effective than site coverage and building height Time Required to Administer Current system • Little to no concern with staff time required to implement system Some concern with time required for applicant Approprlatene _s of Regulating Interior Space • Clear lack of consensus with "appropriateness" issue • Discussion lead to other issues, i.c. EHIJ's, "locals ", etc. [Jthers issues Is the size of homes being built in Vail appropriate, are there issues with all bulk and mass controls and not just GRFA?? Process should also evaluate GRFA relative to multi- family GRFA should not be a deterrent to constructing EHU's • Design guidelines: are they effective, can the process be more effective with getter standards Relationship of GRFA to population, parking, other zoning standards • Address locals/keeping people in Vail vs. "trophy homes" • 0 0 • • Conceptual Alternative #1 - "No Action" Description of Alternative • Leave the existing GRFA. system in place, no changes would be made to allowable GRFA or the definition of GRFA Droll onsensu Very little support for this alternative, fairly strong consensus that some action is needed QuesLion is whether system needs to he "tweaked" to be simplified and more "user .friendly" or whether wholesale changes are necessary Positives • GRFA does control bulk and mass • GRFA encourages design creativity Existing system is predictable, a known commodity • Product (size of homes) has been good • Establishes "value" of property 1 e atiyes • Dees not control bulk and mass • GRFA limits design, creativity GRFA doesn't account for vaulted space System is too complex, cumbersome • There must be a problem or we wouldn't be here ConceDtuai Alternative #2_ - "Conversion of Interior pace" Description of Alternative • Allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided there is no change to bulk and mass of home. Gr_ou +consensus • Fairly strong consensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution PoAftiYes Addresses biggest problem, allows flexibility with floor area while not changing bulk and mass of ]building • Could encourage stability in local population • Could promote safety by climinating "illegal" conversions • System will remain complex and cumbersome, but end result will be worth t ouble Negatives • System will remain complex, cumbersome i People will design homes for future conversion of space Lsmes • Should multi - family units have same opportunity? How to deal with skylights, dormers, etc. Need 4o address parking, other zoning issues • Possibly allow only for EHU's Possibly allow only for homes in existence at time ordinance is adopted 0 Conceptual Alternative "Elimin. tion of GRFA" Description of &JUrn.30ye • Eliminate GRFA, adopt new design guidelines that specifically address buil.dhig bulk and mass issues such as building form, offsets, scale, etc. Group Consensus • Fair amount of eery cautious, highly qualified support for further consideration of this alternative Positives • Other controls (site coverage, height) can adequately control bulk and mass • Eliminating GRFA will simplify system Neggtives • Nccd GRFA as part of total pack -age fur tmn rulling bulk and mass • Design review process is inconsistent, can net provide adequate level of control .design. review standards will limit creativity • Eliminatiag GRFA will allow forlencourage large, non. descript boxes Potentially adverse impact on neighborhoods, community character • Will place increased responsibility, burden on DRB Issues • Have. to study site coverage, height as part of eliminating GRFA, possibly establish graduated scales 0 Coneg tual Alternative #4 - "Eliminate Basement S12ace as GRFA" Description of -Alkrnafxye • Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely below grade from calculation as GRFA Group Consensus Fairly strong consensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution Positives 4 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" • Doesn't directly address bulb and mass issue Potential for additional bulk and mass above gradc Could allow for huge subterranean home • Administrative nightmare to determine what is below grades adds to cumbersome nature of existing system Issues Must have "basement" clearly defined Need to address parking, other zoning issues • • 0 Conce teal Alternative #5 I'Volumetrlc ontrol" Dog ption _ of_ Alternative * Utilize CAD to calculate, regulate volume of interior space Group Consensus • Could be most effective, accurate control • Fair to complicated, difficult, burdensome on applicant Other Alternatives 1 ) Increase GRFA ratio 2) Increase GRFA ratio for smaller lets 3) Don't count GRFA used for EIU's • 4) Simplify definition, i.e, eliminate all credits wid i.ncTeatse ratio 5) Establish bulk and mass controls based on site specific characteristics of lot, i.e. lot size and shape, slope. vegetation, access, etc. and strengthen design guidelines 6) Count vaulted space at front end and increase GRFA ratio 7) Combine proposed Alt_ #2 and Alt. #4 8) Establish parking requirement based on number of bedrooms 9) Eliminate GRFA, expand design guidelines, height averaging, evaluate site coverage and height limits, make changes available to permanent local residents oily, • IUIHL PAW • • r: 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 I. 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 1 Qth, 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 151h, 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 too[ 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. Ill. 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 261h and directed staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority /preference) in more detail: r 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 primarylsecondary 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. is 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. 31 st, 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 • V CURRENT IMPACT QF GRFA AND SITE COVERAGE: A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coverage 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 1 st 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 li EHU (per lot). C. Site Coverage Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total lot area. Therefore, the potential building footprint for a 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 0 • • 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 %n 39 35,001 - 40,000 3.26% 20 40,001 + 8.14% 50 Totals_ 100% £11 E. Impact of GRFA and Site Coverage 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 ranele of how big 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 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st 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 1 st 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 25.0W _.... ...................... ............................... ................................... ......- is 20." r "r. y.. NO GRF'AIHgh; � 15,000 r' NQ.C�tfiA(Lcxa� a 70,000 c° EL 0 a+i 00. o g a a o o ©© o o g 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 g 0 0 0 C 0 n o r m o �i ra m o m ui r. rn m Ln n o eW v ep m o dv •m ui CO o r N GV N N N (!] M (`7 i^'1 ii V Q ll7 LI'1 49 Lot Area (sq ft.) VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: A. AIJQrnative 1 - Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GRFA + Credits .... No GRFA (L* - — No GRFA (Hgh) 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 horses 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. 1 • • 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 a walk -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 - Eliminate RFA 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 D Figure 2 Reduced Site Coverage 12,000 No GRFA (High; 10,000. 8,000 v„ c A (Low, a p6,000 y 0 " 4,000 2,004 i` a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 c 0 0 0 0 o a a o a Ct c o a o co V C Lo 1517 t0Df) Lot Area GRFA +Credits N0 GRFA (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. 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 • is • fE�J E. Summary of Alternatives Table 2 .,iirnmary of Alternatives 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 Would be Could increase size Staff A) Equity: 1- not control alternative very unless it is applied recommends People will still Keep design but it would provide 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 GRFA limit if this alt. is not hinder B)Should this applied to new design. be applied to homes new homes? Alternative Will increase Somewhat Would Would increase Same as Alt 1 can 2- Do not mass of addresses this increase building size by above. basically count building above issue by not complexity pushing GRFA accomplish alt. basement grade. regulating since base above grade. 2 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 appearance. coverage and guidelines, and design controls the DRB's effectiveness in implementing the guidelines. Vail is 90% built out -is it too late to change? l 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 idoes control Vail l mass of homes on large lots. r� U 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): 0 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. iff 0 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 PEG members voted for an alternative with respect to a preference. Table 3 PEC Preferences There was significant discussion regarding each of the alternatives in the context of choosing preferences; 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. 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 preferences; 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. BA @/ BRAUN ASSOCIATES, NC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Russ Forest FROM: Torn Braun DATE- February 6, 1997 RE: Phase H of GRFA Analysis Attached you will find. the Phase H GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of the 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 alternatives: 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 Language 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 - 974.8275797 241 Main Street, 2nd Floor Fax - 970.827.5507 Post Office Box 776 Minturn. Colorado 81645 0 � 1 L_J 0 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 are 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 paragraph 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 bulls 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 TI/GRFA 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 existing 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. Reauire new construction (homes comDleted after adoption of this ordinance) to wait a certain time 12eriod prior to gtilizing ordinance 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 a question - if an interior conversion (and the potential impact of larger homes designed specifically to utilize this provision) is deemed to be acceptable after a five -year waiting period, why is it not acceptable after a one -year waiting period, or a one -month waiting period? Limit interior conversions to homes in existence at 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? 0 Phase II/GRFA Analysis C7 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: 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. 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 I1/GRFA Analysis CALCULATION OF BASEMENT SPACE Building Crass - 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 %- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150') 1,250 (SQ. FT. BASEMENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SQUARE FEET EXCLUDED r1 L_J • • 0 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 H, 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 existing 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 II/GRFA 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 far 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. Mizelines 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 II/GRFA 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 [[IGRFA 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. t:xampies of primary and secondary duiLaing Jorms. 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. 0 Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidclines/No GR.FA 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 bulls and mass of the building. is u Three stories are appropriate because floor area of third level does not exceed 54 %a 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. Towrt 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 34' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Variations in roof ridgelines provide variety and breaks -up wilding mass created by continuous ridgeline. Ridgelines greater than 50'- 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 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. • • 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 mQinfQ;., predominantly o. story building m 0 Building mass should be "benched" into the hillside. Building steps with the natural contours of the site to maintain cane -two story massing. [I 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 he used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA 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, roafline and dormer all contribute to reduce the mass of this building. Bay window and balcony reinforce human - scale. These sketches are frorn 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. 9 • 40 0 Other Issues Relative to GRFA Amendments • 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- corning 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 107, the ratio increases by .05 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 II/GRFA Analysis Attachment B GRFA and EHU sections of the Town Code. 0 12 0 n • 12 -15 -1 CHAPTER15 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(l 996) § 3) 12 -15 -2: GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DISTRICT- GRFA Zone Districts Ratio /Percentage HR 20% of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. + Hillside Residential 5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. ft. SFR 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. + Single - Family Residential 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. GRFA Credits (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentage) None 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit R 25% of lot area at 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. + 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) Town of Vail 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit 799 12 -15 -2 12 -15 -2 GRFA Credits GRFA (Added To Results Of Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage Application Of Percentage) RC 25 % of buildable lot area 225 sq, ft. for single- family and two - Residential Cluster family structures only LDMF 30% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single - family and two - Low Density Multiple- family structures only Family MDMF 35% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single- family and two - Medium Density Multiple- family structures only Family �. HDMF 60% of buildable lot area None High Density Multiple - Family PA 80% of buildable lot area None Public Accommodation CC1 80% of buildable lot area None Commercial Core 1 CC2 80 % of buildable lot area None Commercial Core 2 CC3 30% of buildable lot area None Commercial Core 3 CSC 40% of buildable lot area None Commercial Service GRFA shall not exceed 50 % of total Center building floor area on any site ABD 60% of buildable lot area None Arterial Business HS None permitted None Heavy Service LMU -1 Up to 250% of buildable lot area None Lionshead Mixed Use 1 LMU -2 Up to 250% of buildable lot area None Lionshead Mixed Use 2 A Up to 2,000 sq, ft. total None Agricultural And Open Space OR None permitted None Outdoor Recreation 799 Town of Vail 12 -15 -2 10 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 Town of Vail 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. ,tune 2000 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. b. All or part of the following spat- 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 t� June 2000 Town of Vaal (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. ff 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) allowable dwellings or accommodation (EHU)u as defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title. d. 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 spat- 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 t� June 2000 Town of Vaal 12 -15 -3 12 -15 -3 10 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; Town of Vail 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 (450) 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 June 2400 12 -15 -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. June 2900 Town of Vail 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 f, 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 • 12 -15 -3 12 -15 -4 bearing ridge system is used, B. Applicability: Single- family, two - family, the staff will review the space for primary /secondary or multi - family compliance with this policy. dwelling units that meet or exceed allowable GRFA will be eligible to 6. Primary /Secondary Units: make interior conversions provided the following criteria are satisfied: 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. 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 February 2002 Town of Vail 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, and 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- Lonpth of roof pt,ane Length of dormer . * 1.!:, AP -1, lfL.r� .. Cumulative Length of dormer (s) may not eac— l 600/6 of the length of the roof pima. February 2002 Town of Vail • 0 0 • 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 (2501 ORDINANCE): A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the Torn of Vail February 2002 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 a demo /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: February 2002 Town of Vail 12 -15 -5 1. Eligible Time Frame: A single -fami- 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 - r family dwelling unit was issued a cer- tificate of occupancy (whether tempo- rary or final) or, in 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 Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) under this provision shall i 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_ 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 0 • 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. B. 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. A single - family or two - 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: Town of Vail 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 12 -15 -5 12 -15 -5 temporary or final), or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not re- quired for use of the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and occupancy of the building. 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable develop- ment standards. If a variance is re- quired for a proposal, it shall be ap- proved by the Planning and Environ- mental Commission pursuant to Chap- ter 17 of this Title before an applica- tion is made in accordance with this Section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final Planning and Environmental Commis- sion approval or the approval for addi- tional GRFA shall be voided. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and sites, including the multi - family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (Le,, trash facili- ties, berming to screen surface park- ing, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all required improve- ments to the multi - family dwelling site and building have been completed as required. 6. Condominium Association Submit- tal: An application for additional GRFA shall be made on behalf of each of the individual dwelling unit owners by the condominium association or similar governing body. 0 799 Town. of Vail 7. Applicability: The provisions of this 3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions Section are applicable only to GRFA of existing enclosed parking areas additions to individual dwelling units. may be converted to GRFA under this No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed Section if there is no loss of existing in multi - family dwellings. No applica- enclosed parking spaces in said en- tion for additional GRFA shall request closed parking area. more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor 4. Parking Requirements Observed: area per dwelling unit nor shall any Any increase in parking requirements application be made for additional due to any GRFA addition pursuant to GRFA until such time as all the allow - this Section shall be met by the appli- able GRFA has been constructed on cant. the property. The use of additional GRFA by individual dwelling unit own - 5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All ers, pursuant to the additional GRFA proposals under this Section shall be provisions, is permitted only when one reviewed for compliance with the de- hundred percent (100 %) of the owners sign review guidelines as set forth in in the structure are also proposing to Chapter 11 of this Title. Existing prop- utilize their additional GRFA as well. erties for which additional GRFA is When exterior additions are proposed proposed shall be required to meet to a multi- family structure, the addition minimum Town landscaping standards of the GRFA shall be designed and as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. 0 799 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 -114C of this Title. applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such stan- c. Any other applicable information dards 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 w i t h s u b s e c i o n 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. • ass Town of Vail 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. 18 (1998) § 2: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 799 Town of Vaal 12 -15 -5 lu_.� f i • C 0 0 12 -13 -1 CHAPTER 13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING SECTION: 12 -13 -1: Purpose 12 -13 -2: Applicability 12 -13 -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 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 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, ll, III, And V: 'own of Vail 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 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 Vaal 12 -13 -3 12 -13 -3 stance acceptable to the Town Man- D. Application Requirements: ager and Town Attorney. 1. Applicants for a conditional use C. Development Standards: permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall not be re- 1. 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. 0 5. An EHU may be located in, or at- 4. Applications for a Type Il employee tached to, an existing garage (existing housing unit shall include the signa- on or before April 18, 2000, and tures of all owners of the property 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 Vail (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(2004) § 1) June 2000 Town of Vail 12 -13 -3 (7.0 11 m r CV r Nr C] N r 7, O O O N O O co cli C v i 0 N ~J O a �. a N _ fl 0 to ® — C? L C L D N Q o 4 Q U) a P C] tie O LL<L cc M W a O E E CD eC3. 2 z (N�f y CL N = c <a j U CL o m m . o m m _ CL F Q a °i=a� a C Ol O "7 C C N O = ¢ V to im e w 0 v W= CC ;5 G 0 'c �°- m�vw C7 od r rn "o N d H 0 0 Otl O7 O�j �}U aQ =a S =o L) 'cJ c Ql0 l C a o ca O ll-. m a E m CC Q N m I!J C y_ Q m@ LL C Q E m o oN a� 7. N € V C a ro m N f0 7L". 70 C 40 ?. C l0 t7 -C3 C o:av _4 CD E2 5 ® o E =tee In N 0 Za o Im �(D a } in ? c is w .E oz cc 0.i m m aea �, < -0 2 W a Q 7, O O O N O O co cli C v i 0 N ~J O a �. 0 , I'll .: 0 � � ,qr n & « 0 7¥ OD }d\ ƒ_ a (E\ ©) /§o� E %2E E, ©S2 w F / c � « E £ a= E =�oE2e- � � E D 8 § i = & -) ,e, 7 72 «`« o K §§ -_ °c��E E£�J o@c§§ »2 /s o f c 8& o c§ ■■ s k2 § »�E 6ƒ 2ESE A §25�f\& =»§ ok� k a �)( CD eco E $ � f )I�\ c C 1 >I = .) 0 c < \ $ - =2 E< CD § k \ki_�if}f)a § § \� E2 �ca LLI ° % - &ee�E ma20 6 m % k & / 2 #E2 &k km) E 0 0 0 77 k x (k 22 % =M E■3&2 ± £Ek AIL r=EEE )( k�3�2 I��0006� <Eom § CL ¢ \ � 2 � \ � \ 2 7 C� / q�r m & � �0 s_ =2Jc� / \ /E2f/ . ABA < < $\i uj . EE ■� < 3\3 ±E0 to > 6 Cli ok.m g _222 0 (L � °rd\ » L) - \ 2 & : 2 rd r , & 0 f/g p &2k \\\ n. m =_ mc0 a� &�7 =-0 5 Q7 °6666 $/ @7cl © oeml (1) _ /5�� �k / «f22Em �& <-tf 78& /t @ »�(k ± Q e22< 0 §\ \' '-a J f )� a§kLL i� =22= k§i7k�' =5 ®g < - /2\/2 2 /77ƒ32 S�i� }29k °/ s2 CL ■@E»£m CD . am\ �* 0 -§ - :) fE j \ /{ica \�242,�78 �= Ef ƒk /J /\ƒ o = e (L < ).k ¢ 0 \ § � / 0 Tr r T • 0 F x W H r-1 z x W W 0 a W F W I� *-I V W M T r N N r- r C) O d N c a m U w o Q tL CC D m E w m g m (� N � m 4 m r - C y y .L.. CL F 7 m co Y0 R R [6 Co m a 4'} R m R =� :s cmi ° v CD N 4 i]..t` M n Ln m o m r' a o N L R co C O = u3 (D a, R m R U E CD U N j O O N m m cnc c 3 °1 �c .y. IL e 2 rn; Faits N E Q o a R= 4� a. > R u� 4 0 tm E c c 0--m a o to Q 4 0, cy 4 m Q 0) CD 0 4 � H CL -0 'D m N 0 0 > U� J CL E? Q `o > O T C Q m p a 4 'n ton U? H m m co w �m 0 R 0 m Ln w 0 °- a C7 . CD c m a a I- R H d E c 3 m m y c 3 a CL i R n6 0 4 a y Q ro O ff' wo,� 0. 0 CL y � N y Q1 H N w N .�. `1 i 3 tRA 0 y � C R C m m Im -0 a O o• -C) OD � easy �o r�mm €E00 0 3c D y W ?ti I° C) O d N c a • • • 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: 0 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 /contractorto 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 sprinkler 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 wherein 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 whatwould 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 root, 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. go Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM �j ]F Department of Community Development TOY!i` of VAIL 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Zuckerman Side Yard Variance PEC Number: PECO20059 Project Description: Variance request to construct a portion of a proposed deck enclosure one foot within the required 15 foot side yard setback. Participants: OWNER ZUCKERMAN, BUDD 6587 LAKEVIEW DR BOULDER CO 80303 License: APPLICANT ZUCKERMAN, BUDD 6587 LAKEVIEW DR BOULDER CO 80303 1_ License: Project Address: 2943 BELLFLOWER DR VAIL 09/18/2002 Phone: 09/18/2002 Phone: Location: 2943 bell flower dr Legal Description: Lot: 4 Block: 6 Subdivision: VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEV S Parcel Number: 210314307005 Comments: See Conditions BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: APPROVED Second By: George Lamb Vote: 7 -0 Date of Approval: 10/14/2002 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0005626 Prior to the application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Design Review Board application for the proosed addition to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. F Planner: PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Approved 10/28102 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 14, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits 1. Zuckerman residence - 2943 Bellflower Drive 2. Ice Rink at the Vail Golf Course — 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Public Utility at the Vail Golf Course — 1778 Vail Valley Drive 4. Outdoor Recreation zoned properties 5. Sonnenalp Hotel Addition /Swiss Chalet Redevelopment — 20 Vail Road Driver- George 11:00 am 12:30 pm NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearin Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend the setback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at Coldstream Condominiums, Unit # 25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison gave a presentation of the staff memorandum dated 10/14/02 Bill Pierce represented the applicant, Jim Kaufman and was available to answer any questions the Commission may have of the application. He stated his concerns with the amendment procedure and asked that this application be reviewed as a minor amendment. John Schofield asked for public comment. There was none and the public comment was closed. Gary Hartman expressed his concern with the application as submitted and felt that this request was difficult to support. Doug Cahill asked Allison to cite section 12 -9A -2 for the Commission. (Minor Amendment) Chas Bernhardt stated that setbacks are designed, in part, to protect adjacent properties. He felt that the application was supportable, as there would be no negative impacts to the adjacent properties. Rollie Kjesbo questions the procedural requirements of a minor amendment vs. a major amendment. He stated that he was in support of the application as submitted. George Lamb concurred with both Rollie and Chas and felt that the proposal was in compliance with the review criteria. Approved 10128/02 John Schofield felt that there was no reason to support the application. He stated that as an SDD that the application had to be reviewed based upon the SDD review criteria. He asked 40 the Commissioners for any additional comments. Doug Cahill asked for further clarification of the amendment procedural. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to recommendation approval of the applicant's request as submitted. George Lamb seconded the motion. Chas Bernhardt amended the motion, finding that the application was a minor amendment pursuant to Section 12 -9A -2 of the Vail Town Code. George Lamb seconded the motion. The vote passed by 6 -1, with Erickson Shirley opposed. Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the setback amendment request as submitted and in accordance to the findings outlined in the staff memorandum. George Lamb seconded the motion. The vote passed by a vote of 4 -3, with Gary Hartman; Erickson Shirley and John Schofield opposed. 2. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the required setback, located at 2943 Bellflower Drivel Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan Budd Zuckerman Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell made a presentation to the Commission, pursuant to the staff memorandum. Bud Zuckerman introduced himself and stated that he was available to answer any questions. Rollie Kjesbo was in agreement with the staff memorandum, He added that it had already the numerous examples found in the memorandum provided evidence that this would not be a granting of special privilege. George Lamb concurred. Gary Hartman had no comment. Doug Cahill had no comment Chas Bernhardt had no comment John Schofield added that over the course of numerous variance requests along Bellflower Drive it had been determined that there was a hardship as the homes were built under unincorporated Eagle County requirements prior to annexation into the Town. 2 Approved 10128/02 Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve the application as submitted, with the findings and conditions listed in the staff memorandum 0 George Lamb seconded the motion The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major exterior alteration; a conditional use permit to allow for a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district; a text amendment to Section 12 -7A -3 (Conditional Uses) to allow for retail uses in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; and a variance from Section 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement, located at 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E: Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell John Schofield stated that the discussion today would focus on the addition to the Sonnenalp Hotel only with additional issues being discussed at a later meeting. George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello presented an overview of the project. He stated that they wanted to focus the discussion on the hotel addition at the Sonnenalp_ He highlighted the changes that have been made from the last presentation, specifically pointing out where the setbacks have been increased. Bill Amass, president of Talisman Homeowners Association, stated that they have had concerns about setbacks from their property. He stated that it appears that it went higher than 48 ft. and closer than the drawings they originally approved. John Schofield stated that this application is contingent upon the Talisman's approval as the application will come in on behalf of both the Sonnenalp and the Talisman. Mike Foster, architect with Resort Design Associates, stated that the building has actually reduced in height, except for the architectural projection. With regards to setbacks, he stated that a portion of the building did get closer to the Talisman property, but that the spa area has actually moved further from the Talisman. John Schofield closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Gary Hartman stated that the massing of the building feels better than last time and said his concerns are based on the Sun /Shade impact and how the pedestrian walkway /arcade will work and wondered if the arcade could be broken up a little more. He said he would like to see some site sections across Meadow Dr. to understand how the pedestrian experience feels. Doug Cahill agreed with Gary and also requested profiles of how the building steps. He thought that beyond the first level, the building would step back dramatically and the sun /shade impact would be reduced. He further stated that the east /west alignment made sun /shade extremely important. Erickson Shirley agreed with the concerns with the sun/shade, the mass, and the pedestrian experience. He voiced his concern that in Beaver Creek, the pedestrian areas are always in the shade, which makes for a very cold environment and the pedestrian experience is impacted. He also had concerns about views and that decks along the street are popular, Approved 10/28/02 and it would be beneficial to maintain these and stated that it's a benefit to all not to make the street too cold. Rollie Kjesbo was pleasantly surprised to see the changes and asked if they had any contact with the Vail Village Inn Phase V. Dominic Mauriello talked about the open houses they have had and the limited response from the Vail Village Inn. George Lamb reiterated his fellow Commissioners' comments. He encouraged the applicant to continue working with the Planning and Environmental Commission. ,John Schofield requested that the applicant provide the exact setbacks on the plans and in future presentations. He stated that they will need additional information regarding the 10% retail requirement and stated that there is a common advantage for both the Sonnenalp and the Talisman to get together and make it work. He requested information about the garage and being impacted by the sewer line. Mike Foster clarified the issues with the sewer line and said relocating it only picked up about 5 spaces, which wasn't economically feasible. .John Schofield stated that they would only see this project again once the Urban Design Consultant was on board, and once the issues with the Talisman have been resolved. George Ruther stated that there is no future hearing scheduled at this time. 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to • Section 12 -815-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "seasonal use or structure" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district; text amendments to Section 12 -2 -2 (Definitions), Vail Town Code, to amend the definitions of "seasonal use or structure," "recreation structure," and "recreational amenity," and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a "seasonal use or structure," in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive /an unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian generally located directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst 3`d Filing within the Vail Golf Course. A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development, Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association and the Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff report. Rick Pylman represented the Vail Hockey Association and VRD. He talked about how the facility has been in use the past two winters and so there was not a whole lot to add in regards to the vision of the project. He stated that the increase in hockey and figure skating participation is the reason another ice rink is needed. He said Dobson is under increased pressure for use by non -ice events. He said he is requesting an extension to the previous approval and again noted the need for the facility. Rick Rogers stated he was a full time resident of Vail with a daughter who plays on a team and so he supports the bubble and said it is a win -win situation for everybody. He said it was nice to have two sheets of ice during tournament play. He said the location on recreational land is great, since golf is during a different season of use and the parking lot j exists currently, which is great. 4 Approved 1012$102 Heather Cunningham spoke as captain of a women's hockey team saying that her team cannot get ice time at Dobson, as established teams occupy all the time. Jeff Burell representing the Vail Golf Course Townhomes owners near the proposed site, said he would like to see a time frame placed on the conditional use permit and set hours for usage by the public, as the public use got bumped quite often for hockey, Mike Spriggs, also with Phase III of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes, added to Jeff Burell's comments. He thinks the addition of this use as a conditional use in all Outdoor recreation districts should be more specific in what can be down. He said the time frame of the use needs to be limited in when it can be put up and that it must be down by a particular date and he said there needs to be a change to the addition of the conditional use in Outdoor recreation District. Debbie Webster, the founder of the Vail skating club and a supporter of skating, lives on Sunburst and has one of the best views of the bubble from her home. She said she does not understand how the bubble could be visually mitigated. She wants to have a time limit placed on the bubble. She said she thinks that groups wanting or needing more ice time need to get together and develop a plan for a permanent location. She said the noise of construction and destruction is worse than all her previous concerns of years past. Gretchen Busey lives on Sunburst Drive and represents 17 other homeowners. She said they all rely on zoning to protect property values. She brought up covenants on the property and verbiage regarding outdoor recreation and added that snow removal occurs late at night and is very noisy. She does not believe the proposed site is appropriate and she also brought up that many homeowners did not receive notice. She asked why the proposal is being made and what it includes. Laurie from the Vail Hockey Association, would like to see the Board approve the proposal as is with regards to it coming back every two years. Willow Murphy is a business owner in the area and plays on a hockey team with several members who are full time Vail residents and supports the ring and the need for ice which is definite every year. Mr. Brunnel representing Vaii Golf Course Townhomes and stated that in general they are in support of this, but not in perpetuity. He said they share in the spirit of public cooperation. Piet Peters with the Vail Recreation District said that it has been Council's goal to bring recreation back to Vail from down valley and it is great to have support from the townhomes. Tom Suffield wanted to piggy back on Piet Peters comments and added that the Town made a big commitment in purchasing the bubble. Ross Davis Jr. stated that concrete and utility hookups exist in the current location and there is no way the bubble location will be moving due to the high expense of the infrastructure already in place. Erickson Shirley asked Bill Gibson about items which were stricken in a definition included in the staff report. Bill Gibson stated that all proposals would still come before the PEC for approval and conformance with existing planning documents. He also added that all Outdoor Recreation zoned properties are owned by the Town, so all applications must be accompanied by Town authorization. Approved 10/28102 Rollie Kjesbo asked Piet Peters about trash and that there needs to be separation of recreational skiers from hockey skiers. He also asked Larry Pardee about when snow removal occurs. 0 Piet Peters stated that the facility is used by snowshoers, cross country skiers and hockey He said he has people on staff that clean up trash. Larry Pardee stated that snow removal proposed a challenge for him, especially with the budget cuts made this year. George Lamb was glad to see the public input and feels this has been very constructive. He said he was not on the PEC two years ago, but he felt this was a temporary solution and feels like people are looking at this as a permanent solution. He said in the work session he talked about placing a time limit on the operation, such as five or three years. He thinks groups need to start looking for a permanent location. Gary Hartman stated that this is an amenity the Town needs, but thinks there needs to be a time limit placed on the use. He also added that the zambonie structure either become permanent or be removed. Doug Cahill was concerned about construction noise and trash and asked Piet Peters at what time does he need the structure to be up. Piet Peters stated that October 15`h of each year would work. Doug Cahill asked Bill Gibson about the sticking to of building standards. Bill Gibson stated that because the structure has been reviewed previously, it does not need a review; however, building and fire will need to inspect the structure for egress and safety compliance. Erickson Shirley stated that he snowshoes there often and he saw no abuse in his visits to the site. He feels the conditions do a good job addressing any problems. He stated that a time frame during this economic climate is tough, as there are many projects the community could benefit from and said he supports a longer time frame of approval. John Schofield stated that he visits the site almost daily and the only traffic he encountered was created by the dog show. He said he has mixed feelings regarding a time frame being placed on this, as there has been an outdoor hockey ring there for ten to 15 years. He said regarding property values, he has lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and he has not seen property values go down. He does agree on placing a time frame restriction with regards to usage during the year. He then asked Larry Pardee what sort of time frame is reasonable, in regards to snow removal. Larry Pardee stated that it is difficult to make a comment regarding time frame of snow removal, as the amount and times of snow fall are unpredictable. He does understand the need and goal of the Commission. John Schofield added that he felt that the Vail Recreation District should be in charge of scheduling the bubble with regards to times and usage. Doug Cahill made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed text amendments based upon the criteria and findings in the staff memorandum. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. Approved 10128/02 The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. Doug Cahill moved to approve a seasonal use structure on the golf course, with the criteria and findings in the staff report and with additional changes to conditions that a site plan be used to describe the location, that snow be removed from the parking lot in a timely manner with 75 percent of the lot being available for weekend use, with an overall time frame of no more than 3 years and that a memorandum of understanding be in place regarding scheduling and that the zamboni structure become permanent, or be removed along with the bubble each year. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for a text amendment to Section 12 -BB -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for "public utility and public service uses" as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto; and a conditional use permit, to allow for a "public utility and public service use" in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, located at an unplatted parcel within the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Prime Meridian, generally located south of the 1 -70 right -of -way, north of Gore Creek, and west of 2450 Frontage Road East (Water Treatment Plant) within the Vail Golf Course. A complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development, Applicant: Public Service Company of Colorado Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson reviewed the request and the staff memorandum. Al Morganfield, from Excel Energy, reviewed the need for more gas in the neighborhood. Doug Cahill asked about whether the structure would be safe from car impact with its close proximity to the Frontage Rd. AI Morganfield replied that their engineers did not consider this a high risk location. John Schofield asked about site coverage in the OR Zone District, Bill Gibson reviewed the zoning code definitions and how public utilities do not count towards site coverage. Rollie Kjesbo recommended approval of the text amendment, with the findings listed in the staff memorandum. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. Mollie Kjesbo recommended approval of a conditional use permit with the findings and the conditions in the staff memorandum. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. Approved 10128102 6. 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 Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum and said that some of the items for discussion included the impacts on eliminating GRFA as EHU's incentives and if GRFA should be amended in all zone districts. Erickson Shirley asked for clarification on the scope of the amendments as applied to different types of residences, versus different zone districts. Kyle Webb presented the applicant's proposal Erickson Shirley asked if single family residences in multiple districts can be subject to differing controls of GRFA. He also noted concerns about equity. Kyle Webb noted how the specifics of the changes and specific circumstances will need to be examined. Larry Eskwith noted that there are other methods to control bulk and mass. He also noted that GRFA regulations are the most violated section of the zoning ordinance. He said the regulations have been modified and they still do not work. Dorothy Branning noted that numerous individuals have paid the application fee for GRFA and people have complied to it over the years. Kyle Webb noted that there are currently 75 signatures on a petition to eliminate GRFA. Dave Hilb commented on how GRFA amendments could simplify the review process. Greg Cummings noted the purpose statement on GRFA, as a control of bulk and mass and stated that this is not an effective tool. He also noted the desire for many people to upgrade their homes. John Schofield commented that he is a proponent of eliminating GRFA. He proposed that with the appropriate parameters, GRFA should be eliminated. He felt that eliminating GRFA could simplify the process (not necessarily increasing the size of homes). He recommended that the housing authority comment on possible incentives for EHU's. He noted that any benefits of GRFA are far outweighed by live safety issues that are currently being compromised. He said site coverage will need the greatest focus in terms of limiting building bulk and mass and noted that input from the DRB will be needed as this proposal is reviewed. He said landscape area requirements may also need to be adjusted. He said he would prefer to eliminate all GRFA, but thinks that first changing the three residential districts would be appropriate. He recommended the outcome be similar in impact to current home sizes and recommended a joint session with the Town Council, Erickson Shirley stated that he can't understand why we need GRFA, as long as safety issues are addressed. He asked if the concern was that no GRFA will create the building of a box. 0 Russ Forest replied to Erickson that that was an initial concern, but design review guidelines prevent the building of a box. Gary Hartman questioned if lot size and home sizes have been compared. 8 Approved 10/28/02 Russ Forrest noted the information provide in the staff memorandum. iErickson Shirley asked how homes in Edwards are controlled. Russ Forrest replied that floor area is restricted, but in a much simpler manner. Gary Hartman noted that he feels GRFA is unfair in that some individuals can not afford architects who can avert the regulations, or construct false walls and rooms. John Schofield asked if the PEC was opposed to larger homes. Erickson Shirley replied that larger homes are alright if they fit the size of the lot, and people shouldn't only get caught up in square footage. Doug Cahill believes that GRFA has served a purpose in controlling bulk and mass, but now is the appropriate time to take another look at GRFA. He is concerned about impacts on redevelopment. He also noted that DRB controls need to be considered and incentives for EHU's will also need to be reviewed. Gary Hartman is in favor of eliminating GRFA in all zoning. He disputed some of the "negatives" of eliminating GRFA, as noted in the staff memorandum. George Lamb noted that he is in favor of eliminating GRFA. Rollie K}esbo noted he is in favor of eliminating GRFA somehow. He feels it will create safer building constructed in a logical manner and he noted that larger lots should be allowed to build larger homes. John Schofield recapped that the PEC is unanimously in support of a change, and most support the elimination of GRFA_ He said there is a need to examine site coverage, how to encourage EHU's, how to regulate parking requirements, how to strengthen DRB requirements, we need to examine homes in located in other zone districts, how to address landscaping requirements, and suggested a work session with the Town Council. He asked staff to update the information on how other communities deal with bulk and mass and explore requiring architects to serve on the DRB. 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until October 28, 2002. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 8. A request for a text amendment to Sections 12 -7H -11 & 12- 71 -11, Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for building constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther 9 Approved 10/28102 George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum and requested that today's discussion be a worksession. He said that staff will further examine the proposed options in greater detail and present them to the PEC at a later date. He said staff was comfortable with the proposed measurement methodologies, but welcomed further input and that staff will further define primary roof ridges, interpolated grades, and other terms. Dominic Mauriello noted that they are working on several applications and understand the need to clarify the height regulations. They liked the idea of examining the heights of roof areas. He recommended examining how dormers are reviewed in the interior conversion regulations. Erickson Shirley recommended fixing as much as possible, but having a fail safe to resolve issues that can't be resolved by the letter of the law. George Lamb tabled this until November 11, 2002. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate the construction of `Vail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development, Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 2002 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until October 28, 2002. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 10. A request for a modification to the 100 -year fioodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 2002 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until November 11, 2002. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 0 11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto. 10 Approved 10/28/02 Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell WITHDRAWN 12. Approval of September 23, 2002 minutes 13. Information Update Doug Cahill made a motion to adjourn. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 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. Community Development Department