Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0127 PEC0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION i STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement-, that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every 0number of said daily newspaper for the period of .--.....f...-.... co nsec 've insertions, and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper ted ...., e...-.. A, Q, .. ...o .... and that the last publication of said notice w in the issue of id newspaper dated.... /6.D ............. s? 5..... ^ ,///��/ T In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this .....- f.7jdayof..r ,..Q�............!1.... x ................. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ..............1..!......, day of .... .�... ](j f n . .... Notary Public My Commission expires ......... .............. . • 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 12-3-5 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 27. 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Munirapai Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth detalls in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Russell Forrest A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12- 15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modiffcallons andior elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details In regard thereto, Applicant: Vicki Pearson, ol.al. Planner: Russell Forrest Arequest for a variance from Section 12.68 B ;Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addi- tion in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Gtr. cle/Lol S. Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 51h AM - lion. Applicant: Kale & Carl Cocchiarefla, represent- ed by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Archi- tects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gannett The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours in the project planners office, locat- ed at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The pk"1� is invited to attend project orientation and the sf6/'f 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 re- quest with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impakred, for formation. Community Development Department Published January 10. 2003 in the Vail Daily. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY 1*11 PUBLIC NOTICE �i�� ,1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of 1401 Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 27, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a worksession to discuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Russell Forrest 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 regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest A request for a variance from Section 12-613-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Circle/Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 5'� Addition. Applicant: Kate & Carl Cocchiarella, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gennett 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 January 10, 2003 in the Vail Daily. TONI*VAIL 1 N0 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE 039 PROOF OF PUBLICATION SS. I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of ..../......... cons 've insertions; and that thg first pubficatiof said notice was in the issue of said newspaper date ... :�...R:....... A.D Q .... and at the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated..... A.f3..........�_JW71.......... In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ,..,...f...... Subscribed and swom to before 5fa notary public in and r the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ... ......... /1.,lI......... day of .......... VZ Notary ubW My Commission expires ......... '.n .L:.... PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, January 27, 22003 PROJECT ORIENTATPON i - Community Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visas: 1:00 pm 1. Cocchiarella residence — 5198 Gore Circle 2. Vail Valley Medical Center — 181 west Meadow Drive Driver: George 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 1. A request for a conddtfonal use per - mil, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related fa- cility accessary to a parking structure. and a re- quest for a valiance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and settingg forth de - [ails in regard thereto, Ionated at 181 W. Meadow DrivelLois E&F,. Vail Village 2nd filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a variance from Section 12.68.6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback. located at 5198 Gore CirckelLot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition. Applicant: Kate & Carl Cocchiarelia. represent- ed by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Archin sects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gannett 3. A request tar a worksession to amend Chapter 12.15 (Gross Residentlal Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss moddications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts, and setting fortis details in regard thereto, Applicant: Vicki Pearson. et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest 4. A request for a worksaamon to dis- cuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth details In regard thereto. Applicant Vail Local Housing Authority P anneri Russell Forrest 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amend- ment to Section 12.10.9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths & setting torth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 6. Approval of January 13, 2003 mi- nutes Information Update " Reminder: A public meeting in the Vail Library Community Room on 2/4/03 with the Town Coun- cil, the PEC and the ORB to discuss a format for communication among the governing boards. The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours in the protect planner's office local - ed at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for in- formation, Community Development Department Published January 24, 2003 in the Vail Dally. i C PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, January 27, 2003 Pt1B11SHfD PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Cocchiarella residence — 5198 Gore Circle 2, Vail Valley Medical Center — 181 West Meadow Drive Driver: George I[* - 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 conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2nd filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson Planner. Bill Gibson 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-68-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Circle/Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision Stn Addition. Applicant: Kate & Carl Cocchiarella, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, P,C. Planner: Matt Gennett 3. 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 regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest 4. A request for a worksession to discuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Russell Forrest TOW*YALOL' A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 6. Approval of January 13, 2003 minutes 7. Information Update Reminder: A public meeting in the Vail Library Community Room on 214103 with the Town Council, the PEC and the DRB to discuss a format for communication among the governing boards. 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 Published January 24, 2003 in the Vail Daily. 2 C� *0 • 0 do PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, January 27, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Erickson Shirley John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Gary Hartmann MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie Kjesbo Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Cocchiarella residence — 5198 Gore Circle 2. Vail Valley Medical Center — 181 West Meadow Drive Driver: George �a 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 conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W_ Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2nd filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 5-1 (Schofield opposed) APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 6 CONDITIONS: The applicant is permitted to provide up to 100 existing parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure for short-term public skier/guest parking on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. All business transactions associated with providing this skier/guest parking shall be limited in duration from 8:00 a.m. to Noon daily on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. During the operation of business transactions for this public skier/guest parking, the applicant shall keep the parking structure entrance gate open and staff the entrance to prevent traffic congestion on the South Frontage Road. /� �) Mfg TOWN OF PAIL 2. The applicant shall operate all business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure entrance located on South Frontage Road. The applicant shall not operate any business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center entrance on West 46 Meadow Drive. 3. Prior to providing any pubic skierlguest parking, the applicant shall erect adequate signage internal to the parking structure to direct pedestrians from the parking areas to the Town of Vail In -Town Shuttle bus stops. 4- The applicant shall receive Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Town of Vail Public Works Department, and Town of Vail Planning Department approval for the erection of any signage located within the South Frontage Road property or right- of-way prior to the erection of said signage. 5. The Town of Vail Director of Public Works may revoke this conditional use permit by written notice should the Director determine that any activity permitted by this conditional use permit negatively affects 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. 6. This conditional use permit shall expire on April 30, 2006. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE_ 5-1 (Schofield opposed) APPROVED — VARIANCE 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-613-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Circle/Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 5'h Addition. Applicant: Kate & Carl Cocchiarella, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION (including a revision to the condition, as noted on the approved plans) That the applicant reduce the width of the proposed driveway, upon building permit application, by at least ten feet from west to east on the western side at the first point of angulations after leaving the edge of pavement from Gore Circle. 3_ 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 regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 0 r7 El • 4. A request for a worksession to discuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Russell Forrest WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed tent amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards. Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 24, 2003 6. Approval of January 13, 2003 minutes MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Gary Hartman APPROVED AS AMENDED 7. Information Update VOTE: 5-0 (Bernhardt left) VOTE: 5-0 (Bernhardt left) Reminder: A public meeting in the Vail Library Community Room on 2/4/03 with the Town Council, the PEC and the DRB to discuss a format for communication among the governing boards. 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2„d Filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson, Vail Valley Medical Center represented by Braun and Associates, Inc_ Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARYIBACKGROUND The applicant, Stan Anderson, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC), represented by Braun and Associates, Inc., is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure. More specifically, the VVMC is proposing to sell skier/guest parking in their existing parking structure to the general public on weekends during Vail's ski season. Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of the attached January 13, 2003, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section 11 of this memorandum. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the provisions of 11-413-713-2, Vail Town Code, to allow for the erection of signage for the skier/guest parking exceeding the allowable sign area limits. Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of the attached January 13, 2003, staff memorandum and the evidence and. testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section II of this memorandum. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this proposal at its January 27, 2003, public hearing. This item was tabled to the Planning and Environmental Commission's January 27, 2003, public hearing to allow the applicant time to address the following items: • Employee shift change parking numbers • Employee bus passes and shuttle service • Phase I and II remodels 0 Traffic congestion and safety The applicant has responded to these issues in their attached letter dated January 20, 2003 (see Attachment A). At its January 15, 2003, public hearing the Design Review Board approved, with conditions, a revised sign for the proposed skier parking contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of this conditional use permit proposal (see Attachment B). Please refer to the attached January 13, 2003, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional information related to this proposal including the applicable criteria for review and findings. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a conditional use permit, allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlll of the attached January 13, 2003, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 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 General Use (GU) 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 regulations. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: The applicant is permitted to provide up to 100 existing parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure for short-term public skierlguest parking on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. All business transactions associated with providing this skier/guest parking shall be limited in duration from 8:00 am. to Noon daily on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. During the operation of business transactions for this public skier/guest parking, the applicant shall keep the parking structure entrance gate open and staff the entrance to prevent traffic congestion on the South Frontage Road.. 2 ,2. The applicant shall operate all business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure entrance located on South Frontage Road. The applicant shall not operate any business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center entrance on West Meadow Drive. 3. Prior to providing any pubic skier/guest parking, the applicant shall erect adequate signage internal to the parking structure to direct pedestrians from the parking areas to the Town of Vail In -Town Shuffle bus stops. 4. The applicant shall receive Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Town of Vail Public Works Department, and Town of Vail Planning Department approval for the erection of any signage located within the South Frontage Road property or right-of-way prior to the erection of said signage. 5. The Town of Vail Director of Public Works may revoke this conditional use permit by written notice should the Director determine that any activity permitted by this conditional use permit negatively affects 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. 6. This conditional use permit shall expire on April 30, 2006, The Community Development Department recommends approval of a sign variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2"d filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of the attached January 13, 2003, staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 0 3. Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in Is general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 4. In Line with Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's statement dated January 20, 2003 B. Revised sign proposal C. Staff memorandum to PEC dated January 13, 2003 • r1 4 Attachment: A CJ January 20, 2003 Planning and Environmental Commission CIO Bill Gibson Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Skier Parking Application - VVMC Dear PEC Members: The Vail Valley Medical Center appeared before the PEC at its last meeting on January 13, 2003. As you are aware the VVMC wants to make available its parking structure, which remains mostly vacant on weekends, to the general public for parking. We believe this will help the Town reduce the number of cars being parked on the Frontage Road and improve the experience, safety, and comfort of those visitors to Vail. We also believe that this can be done with little or no interference with the operation of the hospital. The weekend skier parking program is a reduction in overall parking impacts than is experienced on a typical work day. A conditional use for this skier parking use was approved in 1997; however, the approval has lapsed and requires this re -approval. At the last meeting there several concerns expressed about the amount of parking available given that there is an employee shift change that occurs at the hospital. There were some other concerns regarding other elements of the previous Town approvals for the VVMC, somewhat unrelated to the application at hand. Finally, there were concerns expressed about the function and safety of the present entrance to the parking structure. We have information to address all of these issues. • The proposed application would allow the VVMC to make available 100 parking spaces to the general public for parking. This is a fraction of the total available and utilized parking that exists on the campus on the weekends. The entire VVMC campus provides 319 parking spaces. Since we plan to park 100 spaces for skiers; that leaves 219 parking spaces for hospital employees and visitors. On the weekend of Jan. 18 and 19, 2003, we conducted a survey of cars parked onsite. The following is a summary: Time of Day Sat. Jan. 18th Sun. Jan 19th 8:00 am 48 cars parked 36 cars parked 10:00 am 87 cars parked 54 cars parked 1:00 pm 92 cars parked 91 cars parked 3:30 - 4:00 pm 82 cars parked 72 cars parked The worst-case scenario was 92 cars parked at one time, thus after the skier parking program there were still 127 vacant parking spaces on -campus. It should be noted that a number of the cars parked on Sat. and Sun, are employees who are also skiing on the mountain. All clinical employees work 12 -hour shifts from 7:00 am- 7:00 pm, therefore a shift change occurs at 7:00 pm when most skiers have left the structure. There are a handful of administration employees that have a shift change at 3:30 pm. This involves approximately 4 positions (four people coming and four people going). The shift change has very little impact on the overall parking condition on the weekends as evidenced from the parking counts. An issue was discussed regarding VVMC's employee shuttle program. VVMC operates one of the most successful shuttle programs in the Vail Valley. This shuttle program is provided free of charge to any employees on campus (hospital and medical office employees). The program is popular and last year the program provided transportation for overl0,000 riders. VVMC also provides free bus passes to its employees. VVMC has in the past also provided a free lunch voucher for those taking the free shuttle. The free lunch voucher is no longer provided as it was an inducement used in the first year to get employees to try the shuttle service. A free lunch voucher was never a required element of the shuttle program. Another issue was discussed by the PEC relating to "vacant space" being utilized within the VVMC new building addition approved in 2001. We have met with Town staff and have agreed that the space created by the new building addition that was to remain vacant or for storage use can be utilized if an equal amount of space is vacated elsewhere in the building. The phase 2 project 0 2 includes the demolition of older portions of the building (the east end) and therefore it makes some sense to transition uses out of the older portions of the building in anticipation of the future demolition. Since the spaces are being "traded" on a square foot per square foof basis and since the uses being moved are currently located onsite, there is no impact to parking or numbers of employees. On the issue of access and safety, the parking structure fills up everyday of the week and does so with relatively few impacts to the traffic on the Frontage Road. If for some reason traffic on the Frontage Road is impacted in an unacceptable way, we will work with Town staff to resolve any problems and if necessary discontinue the program. We hope that this letter addresses the issues raised at the last meeting and look forward to your approval on January 27, 2003. If you have any questions please call me at 926-7575. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP C: Stan Anderson, VVMC • 3 1Qt 0 :n Attachment: B --- ' - V. - I L�iI] Cip- — L 5i —=y7L 'RC AS��? 5 � S ,Q '-s Q2d �SS= l�Cfl_�SI:=—WM1Slvil—'E4— ■ ■ a a ■ C Ufl ia���1w Vk- • 0 • Attachment: C 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson, Vail Valley Medical Center Represented by Braun and Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Stan Anderson, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC), represented by Braun and Associates, Inc., is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure. More specifically, the VVMC is proposing to sell skier/guest parking in their existing parking structure to the general public on weekends during Vail's ski season. Based upon Staffs review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the provisions of 11-413-713-2, Vail Town Code, to allow for the erection of signage for the skier/guest parking exceeding the allowable sign area limits. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure. More specifically, the VVMC is proposing to provide short-term skier/guest parking to the general public on weekends during Vail's ski season. The applicant is requesting to sell up to 100 existing parking spaces daily in the VVMC parking structure for skier/guest parking on Saturdays and Sundays. Sales of these parking spaces will be conducted at the South Frontage Road entrance to the VVMC parking structure. The applicant has indicated that this entrance will be staffed and business transactions will be conducted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and Noon on Saturdays and Sundays_ The applicant has indicated that 30 percent of the VVMC campus is composed of tenant businesses that do not operate on weekends and that surgical procedures and other treatment units at the VVMC have reduced staffing on weekends. Based upon these decreased staff and patient parking demands, the applicant has indicated that there is usually a surplus of 107 to 137 parking spaces at the VVMC parking structure on weekends. Therefore, the applicant believes that 100 parking spaces can be sold on weekends to the public for skier/guest parking without any negative impacts to the demand for patient and staff parking for the VVMC. A copy of the applicant's request has been attached for reference (see Attachment C). The applicant is also requesting a variance from the provisions of 11 -4B -7B-2, Vail Town Code, to allow for the erection of signage for the skier/guest parking exceeding the allowable sign area limits. The VVMC parking structure business frontage is approximately 65 feet along the South Frontage Road. Based upon this business frontage, the applicant is permitted to erect a maximum of 13 square feet of signage pursuant to Section 11 -4B -7B-2, Vail Town Code_ The applicant is proposing to erect a temporary 20 square foot freestanding sign mounted within the South Frontage Road right-of-way (see Attachment E). The applicant will be required to enter into a license agreement with the Town of Vail for the temporary use of the right-of-way. The applicant originally proposed to erect a sandwhich board style sign; however, Section 11-5-2G, Vail Town Code, prohibits signs not affixed or attached to the ground or any structure. Therefore the applicant has agreed to erect a freestanding sign affixed to the ground only during the permitted business transaction hours for the skier/guest parking. All signs associated with this conditional use permit shall be subject to Town of Vail design review. Ill. BACKGROUND On December 22, 1997 the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow skier/guest parking on weekends and holidays in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure. This conditional use permit approval has since expired. The applicant's current signage proposal is scheduled for review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board at its January 15, 2002 public hearing. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits and variances. 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. 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. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density G RFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on a conditional use permit or variance, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. 0 Town Council: 40 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 Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board 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 memorandum 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 Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 11: SIGNS 4D Article 11-413: All Districts Except CC3 and ABD 11-48-1: Scope This Article concerns those types of permanent and temporary signs requiring a sign application permit under the provisions of this Title. This Article further includes the purpose of each sign type, size, height, number, location, design and landscaping requirements, and special provisions for each type of sign. The following provisions of this Article are the sign regulations for all signs except those signs located in the CC3 and the ABD Zoning Districts. 11-4B-79: Single Business Use: Freestanding sings, single -business use shall be regulated as follows: B. Single -Business Use: Freestanding signs, single -business use shall be regulated as follows: 1. Purpose: To identify a business or organization being the sole business occupant within a building. The identification sign or signs for a business or organization may include the name of the business or organization and the general nature of the business conducted within or upon the premises. In no instance, however, shall the total portion of the sign describing the general nature of the business exceed forty percent (40%) of the total area of each sign permitted for this purpose. The description of the general nature of the business shall be incorporated into the sign or sign identifying the name of the business and should not exist as a separate sign,- 2 ign; 2 2. Size: One square foot for each five (5) front lineal feet of building with a maximum area of twenty (20) square feet, with a horizontal dimension no greater than ten feet (10'). The size of a multi -paneled sign shall be determined by dividing the maximum size allowable by the number of panels. Combined maximum area for more than one sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet. 3. Height: No part of the sign shall extend above eight feet (8) above existing grade. 4. Number: One sign per vehicular street or major pedestrianway which the business abuts, as determined by the Administrator, with a maximum of two (2) signs, subject to design review. 5. Location: On the grounds of the building and adjacent to major pedestrianway which the building abuts, subject to design review. 6. Design: Subject to design review. 7. Lighting: indirect or pan -channeled. 8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be as follows: a. A landscaped area of two (2) square feet for each square foot of each side of the sign and supporting structure shall be required at the base of the sign, with a minimum area to be landscaped of twenty four (24) square feet in accordance with the design guidelines of the Zoning Code. b. All landscaped areas shall be maintained to Town standards as determined by the Administrator, subject to design review. c. A plan showing the landscaping must be submitted by the applicant at the time of the application, 9. Special Provisions: One wall or projecting or hanging sign per street or major pedestrianway permitted in place of one freestanding sign. Chapter 11-5: Exempted and Prohibited Signs 11-5-2: Prohibited Signs The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the town: G. Signs not permanently axed or attached to the ground or to any structure except for window signs and temporary barriers utilized for emergency purposes. U Chapter 7: Variances 11-7-1: Purpose; Limitations: A. Considerations: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title, variance from the regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of the structure, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic 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. Scope: A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this Title. 11-7-5: Criteria for Approval: Before the Planning and Environmental Commission acts on a variance application from this Title, the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the Planning and Environmental Commission must find that: A. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. B. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. Harmony Maintained. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent properly, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. D. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. E. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • 2 0 TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-9C: General Use (GU) District 12-9C-1: Purpose: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain typos of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. 12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: B. Proximity To Parking Required: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: Offices. Restaurants. Ski and bike storage facilities. Sundries shops. Tourist/guest service related facilities. Transit/shutt'le services. Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits 12-16-1: Purpose; Limitations: 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. 7 12-16-5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action: A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public hearing on a conditional use permit, 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 conditional use permit 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. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules. TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN Chapter It. Land Use Plan Goals/Policies: 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community, and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.8 Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increase busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking d) Addition of structured parking, 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Land Use Pian Designation Current Land Use. Development Standard Parking: General Use (GU) District Transition Area Medical Center Allowed/Required Proposed 330 spaces 230 spaces on weekends • 0 VII. SURROUNDING -LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Hotel SDD #14 South: Residential Two -Family Residential East: Commercial/Residential SDD #2.3/High Density Multiple Family West: {open Space Natural Area Preservation VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Cade. The proposed tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure is located within the General Use (GU) District. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code, A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. This type of proposed use is permitted as a conditional use in the General Use (GU) District. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the purpose of the General Use (GU) District and the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan referenced in Section V of this memorandum. 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. 3 Staff believes that this proposal will have a positive impact on the above mentioned items, since this proposal will reduce demand on public parking facilities during peak weekend hours. This proposal may increase the level of bus ridership at the VVMC bus stops, but staff does not believe that this will create negative impact on bus service capacities. 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 this proposal will have a positive affect on the above mentioned items. This proposal will reduce the amount of overflow skier/guest parking currently accommodated along the South Frontage Road. Reducing overflow parking on the South Frontage Road will reduce traffic congestion and improve automotive and pedestrian safety. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission grant the Town of Vail Director of Public 9 10 L Works the authority to revoke the approval of this proposal should the 119 Director of Public Works determine that the operation of this proposal creates any negative impacts or unsafe conditions related to 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 hulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing to make any physical changes to the existing parking structure and the operation of this use will be temporary in nature and all signage shall be subject to Town of Vail design review. Therefore, staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative affects of the above mentioned items in comparison to existing conditions on the site. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before ranting 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 General Use (GU) 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 regulations. Consideration of Factors Regarding a Sign Variance: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff believes that the property line configurations, building locations, topography, and vegetation are unique and considered special circumstances that significantly restrict the effects of signage on this site. Staff believes that a 20 square foot sign is appropriate to properly identify the location of this temporary skier/guest parking use given the existing site conditions and unique nature of the use. 10 2. Applicant Not Responsible; That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff does not believe that these special circumstances on this site were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. 3. Harmonv Maintained: That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff does not believe the approval of this variance request would be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Pursuant to Section 11-413-7, Vail Town Code, the maximum allowable size of a freestanding sign for this business is 13 square feet. The applicant is proposing to erect a freestanding sign 20 square feet in size, which is the maximum size permitted for any freestanding sign. Staff believes that this proposed sign size is appropriate given the existing conditions of the site and the temporary nature of the sign. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, D. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a sign variance: Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 0 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 11 Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a conditional use permit, allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&1=, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIll of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 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 General Use (GU) 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 regulations. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: The applicant is permitted to provide up to 100 existing parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure for short-term public skier/guest parking on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. All business transactions associated with providing this skier/guest parking shall be limited in duration from 8:00 a.m. to Noon daily on Saturdays and Sundays from November 1 to April 30 annually. During the operation of business transactions for this public skier/guest parking, the applicant shall keep the parking structure entrance gate open and staff the entrance to prevent traffic congestion on the South Frontage Road. 12 2. The applicant shall operate all business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure entrance located on South Frontage Road. The applicant shall not operate any business transactions for this public skier/guest parking at the Vail Valley Medical Center entrance on West Meadow Drive. 3. Prior to providing any pubic skier/guest parking, the applicant shall erect adequate signage internal to the parking structure to direct pedestrians from the parking areas to the Town of Vail In -Town Shuttle bus stops. 4. The applicant shall receive Town of Vail design review approval prior to the erection of any signage related to this conditional use permit. 5. The Town of Vail Director of Public Works may revoke this conditional use permit by written notice should the Director determine that any activity permitted by this conditional use permit negatively affects 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. 6. This conditional use permit shall expire on April 30, 2006. The Community Development Department recommends approval of a sign variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2"d filing. 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. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. Applicant Not Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 13 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this sign variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: 1. The applicant shall receive Town of Vail design review approval prior to the erection of any signage. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Public Hearing Notice C. Applicant's Statement D. Parking Structure Plans E. Signage Plans L_J 14 Attachment: AQZ Sif �' • `*'� ... d?: 1�" ;} Std' ;,�. � �"'# v AA 11,74 E � � _ +"- �/! �';��>��... TAT �• �� 3 w� ,'1:; .fir { - - - �/! fern J9 _F ��,+e �,f�J''F'�Y1'� a�• � �..."�_((p� R, { 4 f wee i de k PK Iry _LL 4L q *K AN Cn may.--'.e�y WAN UL P Tri-+ d +i �' �" '•' �• .' � �}a. �?�* si... M1 s _ . _ .�."" ":. y kms. �` � y �`•e A of •_w. �•�� (tea., f � �.: - `� ej �r * e ..�. k AT J 4 �W tc gra Attachment: 8 WestStar Bank 108 S Frontage Rd W Vail CO 81657 The Evergreen Lodge 250 S Frontage Rd Vail CO 81657 Clib B & Mary Ann Hurtt 272 W Meadow Drive Vail CO 81657 Otto Weist C/O Brandes-Cadmus 281 Bridge Street Vail CO 81657 Ronald & Kristine Erickson 5123 Lake Ridge Rd Minneapolis MN 55436 Mr. Ross Davis Jr. 108 S Frontage Rd W #307 Vail CO 81657 Neil G & Barbara S Bluhm 900 S Michigan Avenue Suite 1900 Chicago IL 60611 James U King Jr. C/O Kross Petroleum Inc 900 Threadneedle Suite 650 Houston TX 77079 Mr. Irving J & Mrs. Carol J Schwayder 5910 Happy Canyon Dr Englewood CO 80110 H F Kepner 5161 Juniper Littleton CO 80123 Mr. Benjamin Duke 5550 S Steele Street Littleton CO 80121 Morgan & Catherine Douglas 142 W Meadow Drive Vail CO 81657 Ms Joan Norris Skaalhus Condominium Association 141 W Meadow Drive #2 Vail CO 81657 Mr. Dick Eddy 162 West Meadow Drive Vail CO 81657 Clib B & Mary Ann Hurtt 272 W Meadow Dr Vail CO 81657 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 January 13, 2003, 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 of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-6C-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Type Il Employee Housing Unit and a request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for additions in the side setbacks, located at 1193 Cabin Circle/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Valley 8t` Filing. Applicant: David & Renie Gorsuch, represented by Resort Design Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code, to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2nd filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District. No. 36, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a . mixed-use hotel; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12- 7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for Type III Employee Housing Units and a fractional fee club; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a proposed rezoning of Lot 9A, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Heavy Service (HS) District to Public Accommodation (PA) District, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Road/Lots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: George RutherfAllison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-7A-9, (Site Coverage) and a request for a proposed minor exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Homeowner's Association, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review of a proposed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A- 12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a hotel redevelopment and addition; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for a ti fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section I TOWN OFPAIL 12-7A-3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess of 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the structure as a conditional use; a request for a final review of 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 24 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive/Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell 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 December 27, 2402 in the Vail Daily. r-1 2 Attachment: C PROPOSED SIGN USAGE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING OPERATIONS, VVMC. • The operations and logistics for the proposed skier parking operations are the same as the 1497 Conditional Use Permit. The Vail valley Medical Center currently has a parking structure that has 219 spaces, most of which are not used on the weekends. VVMC would request that it be authorized to sell up to 100 parking spaces to the general public on Saturdays and Sundays during the ski season. This resource can greatly benefit the Town of Vail and skier population by reducing the number of cars that park on the South Frontage Road. In addition, VVMC has close proximity to the Town of Vail Bus stop located to the South of the parking structure on West Meadow Drive. In order to advertise the availability of parking, VVMC request the use of a sign (see attached) that is large enough to be seen by westbound traffic on the South Frontage Road. We believe the proposed sign dimensions are adequate for this purpose. SIGNAGE COLORS. WMC is submitting a sign that has some bright colors. We believe these colors could be changed to any scheme as long as the sign is large enough. The sign would be a "sandwich board " style sign that would be located on the South end of the parking structure next at the control gate. The hours of operation would be from 8AM until I IAM. The position will be manned to operate the control gate and at I IAM, the sign will be removed. The automatic function on the gate will allow guest to exit. A small pamphlet will be distributed to parking guest that directs them to the bus stop and will have a contact phone number for assistance while parked at VVMC. The effect of this program utilizes current VVMC entrance and exit routes and due to the temporary location of the sign there will be no " area character change" for this location. 10 L J STATEMENT AND GENERAL USE DESCRIPTION ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: A. Describe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. Vail Valley Medical Center is seeking a conditional use permit to sell to the general public access to VVMC's parking structure. Use of the structure would be on weekends only, when the hospital has an abundant number of unused parking spaces. Selling 100 spaces to the general public will still allow VVMC to meet patient and employee parking demands. Currently, there are 330 available parking spaces comprised of 207 inside the parking structure and 123 in the front parking lot. Typical usage on weekends shows approximately 40 vehicles parked in the front lot and 70 inside the parking structure. B. The relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Allowing the sale of existing parking spaces at Vail Valley Medical Center is a positive use of community resources toward its ongoing parking shortage. C. 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. Distribution on the visitor population and reduction of overburden parking facilities would be complimentary to accessing the Town of Vail. D. The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive' and pedestrian safety and connivance, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. A reduction of overflow parking on the Frontage Roads is foreseen. Pedestrian safety is complimented by use of the Town of Vail bus located on Meadow Drive. E. The 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. By enabling Vail Valley Medical Center to utilize existing parking spaces to meet public need is a positive use of community resources. This program will relieve congestion on the South Frontage road and make access to recreational facilities easier for the guest. 6116912663 e4:42 976-926-7576 J -RN -09-2803 16:18 FRCM: BRAUN ASSOCIATES VaR VaHiqy Medical #tiler TQ:570 926 7575 The ronin parking stmeture for the VVMC campus at 181 W. Meadow Drive contains 207 parking spaces for employee -q. Employees between Monday and Friday geueridly fill thcsc spaces. However, on weekends, staf'f'ing at the hospital decreases dramatically for at variety of'rcasons. About 30% of staffing at the campus are comprised of tenant units that :shut down for the weekend. ,Additionally, surgical praccdulres and other trcatment units have a considerably decreased workload. The bottorn line is that out of those 207 spaces, between 70 and 100 m2y be used on Saturday axad Sunday leaving approxixttatcly 107-137 unused Spaces. "Your Care Is Cur Mlsslan" 181 West Meadow Grivo - S0e 1 go • Vail, Colorado 81657 - 970.476-2451 PAGE 62 P.002 • • 40 Page 1 of 1 Bill Gibson - VVMC From: "Dominic Mauriello" <dominic@la braunassociates.com> To: "Bill Gibson" <bgibson@ci.vail.co.us> Date: 01/09/2003 9:25 AM Subject: VVMC Attached is a graphic showing the proposed sign location on the aerial. 1 will fax you a copy of the parking lot layout. Skier parking will occur on level 2 and 3 up to about space 100. This also shows the location of the proposed sign. The sign will be 20 sq. ft. or less in size but will look identical to the graphic proposed. We think the sign needs to show the price $13 to same as Lionshead otherwise people may pull in and then want to leave and cause more congestion/confusion. The sign will be temporarily displayed from 8:00 am to noon on Sat. and Sunday, a total of 8 hours a week. I will fax you a letter from VVMC later today with the staffing levels. Thanks. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Braun Associates, Inc. PO Box 2658 Edwards, CO 81632 Phone: 970.926.7575 Fax: 970.926.7576 Email: dominic@braunassociates.com 01/09/2003 22:29 970-926-7576 r lr 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1fi 17 18 19 20 21 22 Attachment: D 5 11 4 II 3 11 2 H 1 311 �j 37 38 ,IATES Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure Level 3 PAGE 02 • SAY, la-clf" •I 01/08/2003 22:28 970-926-7576 r - y 78 11 77 76 1 75 74 BRALN ASSOCIATES Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure Level 2 PAGE 03 79 93 r,�a 80 94 141 128 81 95 140 127 82 96 139 125 83 97 138 125 84 98 137 124 85 99 135 123 86 100 135 122 87 101 134 121 e8 102 133 120 89 193 132 119 90 104 131 116 C 91 105 130 117 �w 92 116 115 1 Cir, VA 107 10B 109 110 111 1 112 113 11141 WA PAGE 03 Ell/08/2003 22;28 970-926-7576 t 147 11146111451114411143 148 149 167 168 BRAUN ASSOCIATES Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure Level 1 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 176 177 178 179 180 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 185 185 184 183 182 Ha PAGE 04 C rzm= 0 C7 150 150 C 151 161 1= 152 152 153 153 154 164 155 165 p 166 167 168 BRAUN ASSOCIATES Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure Level 1 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 176 177 178 179 180 193 192 191 190 189 188 187 185 185 184 183 182 Ha PAGE 04 C rzm= 0 C7 VAIL VALM mEDICAL CENTER SECOND FLOOR PLAN I[] I PCU 2 "Mounti Cardiopul.7 map t Colorado Mountain Medical East 4 \k;L .w� VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FIRST FLOOR Ambulance E Garage Parking t x. —F—, rui Unasing Sports Medicine Procedures f� • 11 Attachment: E Vail Valley Medical Center Skier Parking Proposal Sign Location r 3i4 it iRi 4- A ' E r 3i4 it iRi 4- A iL1RE CORNER FIS 0,1 ' WITHIN EASEMENT 30UTILITY ASPHALT EASEMENT PATH Delta = 12'36'4 tp R= 4-69.30' Tm 51.87' L= 103.31' CH= 103 - I O'l CB= S54*05j.�eE fill,EM E PER BOOK 09 AT 41, PA 327 ABED AREA) ELECTPJC MANHOI F RIM ELEV. = 8169.7' OLTrUNE OF NSIDE. SMCtU.f?.E BELOW AC PAD X77. M Ni oi s'47 -E 20AS RAMP DOWN FOUND PIN & CAF P.L.S. N.O. 16827 2a ELECTRIC MANHOLE RIM ELEV. = 8165.9' PARKING 4' VENT STRUCTURE x- X, ROOF RAMP a210X + DOWN co x 4- 8168.4. (8) PARKING SPACES SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT BOOK 560, PAGE 322 8160 4-7' 0 BUILDING OUTLINE P EASEMENT PER BOOK 319, PAGE 888 0 uwi (HATCHED AREA) 'i L) U N72'41'13'W - I&OC' RIN, Fl.ft 9 �I PE51011 f09 (I) II011d[l.UIdIII ATE P PIF 1s41TA5IF A�fRAIdE 51011 SKIER PARKING $12,00 PER DAY HAKE (1� R?F 51G1-1 SIGN SPECIFICATIONS I MAKE (1) NON ILLUMINATED DIF FOLDII-10 A- FKAME 510N t220-10 H110 AT 1DF YY�111TE 1' AHOLE 1011 FRAME Hu F11 16H 5 4�IIVIIIR LU[ A I" ANGLE IRON-FRAMEWOR- 51ON C011515T5 OF TWO FKAME A55EM5LIE5 DOLTED TOOETHEK 51DE V 51DE L 14 I'3' ALU141131 RC15 CHAIII SLACK FASUIR FAI[ITER TYPICAL PEVECTNE FIIIISH RETAIL �110'f TO SCALE] 1115' ALUMINIUM FACES WITH MILL FINISH (UNPAINTED) A PKEMIUM 5COTCHC,AL AWL OKAPHIC5 1 HII~1OED TOP AND CHAINED 50TTOM .;a 800-+493.6.,44 FAQ970-E493-b2188fW14W.SHA4SIG11 C 0 M CllEll f: VAt VALIFY MEPICF,L CECEF KALE i 110" LdCAi101I: VA L. Cid 5ALE5PEF00It kC PPEFH: 'S' I4E51 WA(Y,4�� Y- 5J,17 N PENGIIER 5f4 m1rq..mnnlnlsMe�1{I,' 0Wil No IIP. 9'CO:G I vsE. 12'36'a I FILE Il li :1AJ,.Jd 111,164 ttrmleaoa pgsrlaa1 byagSwdp!Y.rgInimYranamu¢ aPYG rnhm usxl�ndY1 rq mrrru}e� nr�rw uw rtx, {rr911Bllmr i1w 4p;1�rrY� Ix 'rums #i 11x1 putwa"o4lal57i' 9m 1 lift m L c io dBNY r. mn* mtdm, .WN N mo d+iYpowm N ort r+lebo �1 Ce 1 Poit3 ;d1 ;Rchlboa¢kwuomstCrr,agfY58Nae 1Q1Wai, N,Yhbruarhicer MILV OWal n ra Yrun h ¢141 MEMO J#r.lpi�4 krr� n .! rn W mpaltb Ir a SAIIld�rde(Itlra IiY� pt1Y/ rm'alm[rw oche �rx sn aar rlw nofm:7e M1 arrgo m r�1qu1 rtpi til h Flo uY wIP+�YE d to p1gaY ewt xat lydelt+��t flSfY 3S..ti 101Eri [�4 Midl� ii ll� a3nhM,A�'iLfL A.I,AiC[w`li+mi'r�IY � YYfrhtit1I0VIUS':av 14A]AdMOWYuWILKu{iWL10C8C4U04 4klv[w v� $12,00 PER DAY HAKE (1� R?F 51G1-1 SIGN SPECIFICATIONS I MAKE (1) NON ILLUMINATED DIF FOLDII-10 A- FKAME 510N t220-10 H110 AT 1DF YY�111TE 1' AHOLE 1011 FRAME Hu F11 16H 5 4�IIVIIIR LU[ A I" ANGLE IRON-FRAMEWOR- 51ON C011515T5 OF TWO FKAME A55EM5LIE5 DOLTED TOOETHEK 51DE V 51DE L 14 I'3' ALU141131 RC15 CHAIII SLACK FASUIR FAI[ITER TYPICAL PEVECTNE FIIIISH RETAIL �110'f TO SCALE] 1115' ALUMINIUM FACES WITH MILL FINISH (UNPAINTED) A PKEMIUM 5COTCHC,AL AWL OKAPHIC5 1 HII~1OED TOP AND CHAINED 50TTOM .;a 800-+493.6.,44 FAQ970-E493-b2188fW14W.SHA4SIG11 C 0 M CllEll f: VAt VALIFY MEPICF,L CECEF KALE i 110" LdCAi101I: VA L. Cid 5ALE5PEF00It kC PPEFH: 'S' I4E51 WA(Y,4�� Y- 5J,17 N PENGIIER 5f4 m1rq..mnnlnlsMe�1{I,' 0Wil No IIP. 9'CO:G I vsE. 12'36'a I FILE Il li :1AJ,.Jd 111,164 ttrmleaoa pgsrlaa1 byagSwdp!Y.rgInimYranamu¢ aPYG rnhm usxl�ndY1 rq mrrru}e� nr�rw uw rtx, {rr911Bllmr i1w 4p;1�rrY� Ix 'rums #i 11x1 putwa"o4lal57i' 9m 1 lift m L c io dBNY r. mn* mtdm, .WN N mo d+iYpowm N ort r+lebo �1 Ce 1 Poit3 ;d1 ;Rchlboa¢kwuomstCrr,agfY58Nae 1Q1Wai, N,Yhbruarhicer MILV OWal n ra Yrun h ¢141 MEMO J#r.lpi�4 krr� n .! rn W mpaltb Ir a SAIIld�rde(Itlra IiY� pt1Y/ rm'alm[rw oche �rx sn aar rlw nofm:7e M1 arrgo m r�1qu1 rtpi til h Flo uY wIP+�YE d to p1gaY ewt xat lydelt+��t flSfY 3S..ti 101Eri [�4 Midl� ii ll� a3nhM,A�'iLfL A.I,AiC[w`li+mi'r�IY � YYfrhtit1I0VIUS':av 14A]AdMOWYuWILKu{iWL10C8C4U04 4klv[w c au LD L M Q LLI a 2 LULLJ lS1 J J } I (Z] C Lu #I .Aa FAO 2 4S) CS] `1 LULJ LLJ V O LLI �_ LLJ isJ LU LLJ 'L w y y � � d d LtJ LLJ J— LLJ 7 � c LtJ V r- Ll LLj - LU LLJ <�� LZ • • • .dad T11 O.a e.PPlydaa41G C1 9 yyy .�•wi;J�tl �.�OiRd.d itf{4 �Yxv eS .4i'al��i Pf1 Yd. ITNA '^ END25D ti � a:E:a0 g lea a Floc�i�) e;aC) 0 �C-12E,t e y� T11 O.a e.PPlydaa41G C1 9 yyy .�•wi;J�tl �.�OiRd.d itf{4 �Yxv eS .4i'al��i Pf1 Yd. ITNA '^ END25D ti � a:E:a0 g lea a Floc�i�) e;aC) 0 �C-12E,t • Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6B-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Circle, Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision Stn Addition. Applicant: Pam Hopkins, Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The applicant, Pam Hopkins, is requesting a variance from Section 12-613-6, Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirement of the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone District, for an addition and remodel to the Cocchiarella residence at 5198 Gore Circle (Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn 5thSubdivision). The existing home and garage are pre-existing, nonconforming structures built on a conforming lot containing 24,015 square feet located in the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone district. The existing, separated garage, which is to be removed by virtue of this proposal, encroaches into the front and side setbacks, and the town right-of-way. The existing condition of the subject property is the result of events promulgated prior to annexation into the Town of Vail and the Cocchiarella's ownership. Staff is recommending approval, with one condition, of the requested variance as a hardship exists and this would not constitute a granting of special privilege to this individual property. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting relief from the SFR zone district's minimum front setback of 20' from Gore Circle in East Vail. The existing garage, on the northeast corner of the property and shown on the site plan with a dashed Zine, is to be demolished, thereby removing it from the front and side setbacks, as well as the town's right-of-way. The remodel and addition to the existing residence will decrease encroachment into the front setback, remove all structures from the right-of-way and side setback, and result in a state of greater overall conformity with the Vail Town Code. The encroachment does not cause any visual harm or nuisance against neighboring property owners. As depicted on the reduced site plan and proposed north elevation, the new entry will be raised to the main level, and will still be situated in the front setback, but remain approximately 80' from the edge of Gore Circle. It is apparent to town staff that unique circumstances apply to this lot and some relief from the strict interpretation of the zoning regulations may be necessary in order to avoid a hardship for the owner. III. BACKGROUND 0a Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Fifth Addition was created by virtue of the plat recorded on November 25, 1966. i In 1974, the Bighorn Fifth Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail via Ordinance 31, Series of 1974, which became effective on December 17, 1974. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a. Bed and Breakfast was granted to previous owners John and Paula Canning on June 25, 1990. A DRB application for an addition to the west side of the building was approved on July 16, 1991. 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 PEC 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, V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoning Regulations Chapter 6: Residential Districts, Article B. SFR, 12-66-6, Setbacks, and; Chapter 17: Variances, Sections 12-17-1 through 12-17-8. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Single Family Residential (SFR) Land Use Plan Designation: Residential Current Land Use: Residential Development Standard Required/ Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area: 12,500 sq ft. (min.) 24,016 sq. ft. n/c Setbacks: Front: 20' -3' 5' Sides: 15' V&16' 15°&n/c Rear: 15' 60' n/c Stream 30' from centerline Building Height: 33' 26' n/c Density: One unit per lot, max. 1 per 0.55acre n/c GRFA: 4,951 sq ft 2,462sq ft 4,717sq ft Site Coverage: 4,803sq ft (20%) 2,657sq ft (111%) 3,789sg ft (16%) Landscape Area: 14,409 ft (60%) 14,789 sq ft (62%) n/c Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 3spaces (n✓c = no change) .J VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) South: Residential Residential Cluster (RC) East: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) West: Residential Single Family Residential (SFR) VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 3 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance is not of any consequence to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, with the possible exception of the Town of Vail's right-of-way. At this time, the Public Works department does not believe that it is necessary for the owner to acquire any portion of the right-of-way, either through easement or fee simple purchase, for the proposed driveway. However, the driveway does not need to sustain a width of 25' for its entire length and should be reduced to a width of 16% from west to east, after the first turn off the edge of Gore Circle. 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. 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. 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. The applicant's proposal will remove entirely the existing garage from the town's right-of-way and the side setback, thus resolving two i substantial issues of nonconformity, The only remaining nonconformity will ! be with the minimum front setback standard, which will be significantly improved from the existing -3' to a proposed 5'. Numerous, similar variances have been granted in the immediate neighborhood of the Bighorn 5th Addition. The Applicant did not purposefully seek to locate the existing residence within the minimum front setback and followed proper procedures when applying for permits to build. 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 does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal. The garage has existed in its present location for over three decades without any known negative impacts to any of the crucial elements mentioned above in this finding. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinga variance; 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. • 4 2. 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. The variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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. Exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance exist that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 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_ IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with one condition of the request for a variance from Section 12-6b-6, Minimum Front Yard Setback in the SFR zone district to allow for the applicant to have a legal structure. 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 and condition: Approval 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. Condition: That the applicant reduce the overall width of the proposed driveway, upon building permit application, by at least ten feet from west to east on the western side at the first point of angulations after leaving the edge of pavement from Gore Circle. X. Attachments A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's proposal C. Reduced site plan D. Reduced elevations and floor plans E. List of adjacent property owners 5 947 Attachment: A Vicinity Map 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 Miles 0 Attachment: B �t Application for Review by the y� Planning and Environmental Commission TOVi"LV OF VA L• Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.d.vail.co.us General Information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: ❑ Rezoning $1300 ❑ Conditional Use Permit $650 ❑ Major Subdivision $1500 ❑ Floodplain Modification $400 CJ Minor Subdivision $650 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration $650 CJ Exemption Plat $650 ❑ Major Exterior Alteration $800 ❑ Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000 ❑ Development Plan $1500 ❑ New Special Development District $6000 ❑ Amendment to a Development Plan $250 i ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 19t Variance $500 (no Wen& modifications) ❑ Sign Variance $200 Description of the Request: U ,gt; :M A2212%4 VD k Y .1a's Location of the Proposal: Lot: t'' Block: � Subdivision: AM—TIDN • Physical Address: Q� �� E7v IZ G 1 2C LL Parcel No.: 0_34?0�(Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: 1!` 6165 i4X I by Name(s) of Owner(s): Ki4 T G A +v -b c (—J 1 fZr-- C Mailing Address: J i' to 2t"_: (f i ac. Phone: Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: Phone: 5 E-mail Address: aW&6WW4M ho .1a' -4162-14-q ! T, For Office U Fee Paid: Check No.:�tT By: � Applicatiorti. Date; PEC No.: Planner: Project No.: Pa0ge 1 of 6-01118102 Snowdon and Hopkins • . Architects;: Written Description of the Nature of the Variance Requested and the Specific Regulation(s) Involved 0 Front Set Back Variance: • The existing residence and existing free-standing garage were built in the early 1970s. Their locations are non -conforming by Town of Vail standards. • The existing garage will be demolished. It is in both the front and side set backs, and is on the Town of Vail right of way. • The existing entry and living room are down a half level from the main floor level. We are proposing to demolish this wing and then build a new entry and a two -car garage both level with the main floor. The proposed garage addition will not protrude into the 15' side set back and will not be on the Town of Vail's land. The new entry will still be in the 20' front set back - it is in the same location as the existing entry, but raised to the main level. This will allow a minimum remodel of the existing residence. The entry is approximately 80' from the edge of Gore Circle. The three new proposed bedrooms are not in the 20' front set back. 0 PO Box 3340 * Vail, Colorado 81658 • Phone: 970-476-2201 • Fax: 970.476-7491 =071=1 ! 1 ! L f } # $ a, =-17_1 71 1 _ 40 Written Statement a. This proposal improves the distance between the garage and lot 9 as well as relocating it off the Town of Vail right of way and out of the side set back. The entry location remains in the front set back and 80' from the edge of the road (Gore Circle). b. To relocate the entry out of the front set back would require extensive interior remodeling of the existing house, the removal of some wonderful stands of pines as well as the Long-established gardens, and would necessitate pushing the garage 50' from the street. c. The requested variance would have no effect on light, air, distribution of the population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. d. The requested variance complies with the Town of Vail's objectives by reducing the two buildings on the lot to one upgraded building with only one variance, the front set back • is Attachment: C COCCHIARECLLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snowdon and Hopk=-Arctiw m. P.C. °" 'zac aims LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION,,,0 �°T° i&= 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • • • v 4 x COCCHIARECLLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snowdon and Hopk=-Arctiw m. P.C. °" 'zac aims LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION,,,0 �°T° i&= 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • • • ffiffi86 8 ffi88ffi COCCHIARECLLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snowdon and Hopk=-Arctiw m. P.C. °" 'zac aims LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION,,,0 �°T° i&= 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • • • • 0 L 1 Lo W Attachment: D COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE sn&wftnand Hovkft-Archk- s, P.C. LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION a 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • I I • COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snaxdonand Hop�uns-Ar&AeMP.C. 3r +a-aoozrEc LOT 8� BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION yr r�a.mena vw..rsr`a, 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO OCWSO103'AiNnO 319V3 11YA d0 NMOI 313HI3 3x09 9 6I S """`•"' ""'�°°"" NOLLI(3QV HLdlj NOISIAI®BfIS NbOH919'£ 3130113'5101 3a,mac «.o Q ,.,�. PMUOP"«'s 33NmIS3b RIIWV:l V-n3VVlH3303 n�a u UII j P 'o� L� °°"""" COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE SnowooeandFknAns•ArcHtecls.P.C. p LOT 8 BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION m,0—C. C.- "°`tea°' G 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • • 0 • L_ -- ---- � I r ---_ I I I I I I I I I I I x I I .Ira I I CDCCHIAREL.L.A FAMILY RESIDENCE S..d..dHow. -ftl sda,P.C. �. 12-3002 PEC LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION w 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORAbO COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snowdon and Hopkins • ArcNteds. P.C. LOT 8r r BLOCK 3 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION w ,r nss+ rwv sdv+ei 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF PAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • r� COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snow6mand Hopkms•Artilects.P.C. �► o« a -3a az c LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION 9'"m WY.Cmtlo Ml6T i,V slb]ci 55198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 0 • a I I I I 1 I I l I I I COCCHIARELLA FAMILY RESIDENCE Snowdon and Hopkits•/veNleds, P.C. °"' 13'3003 PEG LOT 8, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIFTH ADDITION vo+t v c G Ya.e+nasr rw�cao-ra°� 5198 GORE CIRCLE TOWN OF VAFL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO ,r- Attachment: E s 2 l45) /0&ur Ute, �O ol�os`7 nayx�vv� W,1Zq 7 • a • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 27, 2003 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: Russ Forest / Bill Gibson L SUMMARY The purpose of this meeting is to allow the applicant, public, staff, and the Planning and Environmental Commission an opportunity to further identify issues related to an application to modify and/or eliminate Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations within the Town of Vail. 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. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vicki Pearson et. al., is requesting to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations and setting forth details in regards thereto. III. BACKGROUND At its October 14, 2002, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss this proposal. Please refer to the attached minutes from the October 14, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing (see Attachment A) and staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 14, 2002 (see Attachment B). IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. However, staff has identified two fundamental issues pertinent to this proposal that we believe should be discussed: %VAIL TOW w 1. From a Town of Vail policy perspective, should residential dwelling units within the Town of Vail (i.e. single-family, two-family, multiple - family, employee housing, fractional fee club, time-share, lodging) be larger, smaller, or essentially the same size (in terms of both bulk/mass and floor area) as currently permitted by the Town's zoning regulations? 2. What regulatory alternatives should be considered by the Town of Vail to achieve the above identified policy? Examples: • Eliminate GRFA regulations • Eliminate GRFA regulations and create regulations such as FAR (floor area ratio) • Eliminate GRFA regulations and modify other existing regulations (ex. site coverage, landscape area, setbacks, design guidelines, etc.) • Modify existing GRFA regulations • Make no changes to the current GRFA regulations V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a staff recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review of this application. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. October 14, 2002, PEC public hearing minutes excerpt B. Staff memorandum to PEC dated October 14, 2002 C. Additional reference documents 2 • Attachment: A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT Monday, October 14, 2002 (Approved 10128/02) 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. 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. Russ Forrest noted the information provide in the staff memorandum. Erickson 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 Kjesbo 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. 0 Attachment: B MEMORANDU TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest 1. 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. IL 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 reguiations 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 YetIL 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 othertools for controlling Is bulk and mass. Two staff memos and a report on GRFA are provided in Attachment A from the MW 1996 & 1997 GRFA review. At this time, staff recommended eliminating GRFA while reducing site coverage on large lots (over 20,000 sq. ft.) and providing the design Review Board with improved criteria for reviewing the bulk and mass of residential properties. The conclusion of the Town Council was to allow for interior conversions for structures constructed prior to 1997. The interior conversion ordinance allows people to fill in crawl space and vaulted areas in home built prior to 1997. The intent was that this would reduce illegal construction. Staff has received 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. fL 15,000 x .25 = 3,750 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sig. 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. 2 11 • 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. ft. Total GRFA for the entire site. Zoning: PrimarylSecondary 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 fom.,arding a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Town Council of a tent 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 howthe 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:. 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 I That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality, Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a text amendment. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: t. The extent to which the tent amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the tent 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 I The extent to which the text amendment dernonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND REGULATIONS Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12-3-7. Further, Section 12-3-71B states, in part, that, An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries maybe initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. Title 12, Zoning Regulations Section 12-15-1, Vail Town Code, states that the purpose of GRFA is: This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. The full text of Section 12-15, Vail Town Code, is provided in attachment C. Section 12-18, Vail Town Code, deals with nonconforming sites, uses, structures, and site improvements and states the following: 12-18-5. STRUCTURE AND SITE IMPROVEMENT,' Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements 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. 40 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. C. Open Space And Landscaping: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for usable open space or landscaping and site development may be enlarged; provided, that the useable open space requirements applicable to such addition shall be fully satisfied, and provided that the percentage of the total site which is landscaped shall not be reduced below the minimum requirement. 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 forsuch addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this title shall not be increased. (Ord. 8(1973) § 20.500) Currently an incentive for a private property owner to create a deed restricted employee housing unit is additional GRFA. Section 12-13-1, Vail Town Code, states a number of potential incentives for EHUs including GRFA: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality. living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in-kind services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. Town of Vail Lanz! 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. • C 40 Goal 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands fora full range of housing types. A. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A TEXT AMENDEMNT Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in Title 12, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the tent 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. 7 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? 0 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 8 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 00140 split in the Prim arylSecondary 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 Prim arylSeco nd ary 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 18 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 II. 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 31 st 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. Ill. 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/bulIders)? 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. 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 Critical Dates Step 1: Background Analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & October Step 2: Public Meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & 31 and alternatives. Step 3: Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11 (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings is to determine November 26 (Council) if any of the alternatives can be eliminated in order to narrow down the review process. Step 4: Complete analysis of pros & cons of alternative approaches. December Step 5: PEC and Town Council.decide on a preferred alternative January 13 (PEC) January 14 (Council) Step 6: Take action to implement preferred action, if any. January/February Note: Depends on which alternative is chosen IV. SUMMARY FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS: A complete summary of the input from the two public meeting will be presented at the November 25th worksession (See attachment 2). The following are key points people tended to agree or disagree on. Maior Areas of A reement: ' 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 10 standards should not be so inflexible that they stifle creative design. * Staff time is not an issue. However, time requirements for applicants to explain the GRFA system to clients is an issue. * Many felt (not all) that interior changes (particularly for owner occupied homes) should only require a building permit and not count towards their GRFA allowance. Major Areas of Disagreement: * There was significant disagreement on whether the GRFA allowance should be increased across the board. Some felt that to be competitive with down valley real estate markets we needed to increase GRFA allowances across the board. Others thought that homes in certain areas of Vail (Rockledge and .Ptarmigan) were already too big. * Some felt that relatively minor changes to the GRFA system could address their concerns, while others felt that GRFA needed to be eliminated and that site coverage, height, and design controls should be used to control mass and bulk. * Several people felt that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass. Many of the developers, designers, and real estate agents felt that site coverage, height, and the Design Review Board currently control bulk and mass, not GRFA. There were exceptions in that several architects felt that the GRFA system results in creative design solutions. V. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INPUT: The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) also had mixed feelings on the existing GRFA policy and possible alternatives_ Four members felt that alternative three (eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. The PEC felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines are needed. One commissioner that supported alternative 3, felt that at least 2 architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC feat 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. 0 ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF VAIL GRFA ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1996 I. EVALUATION OF VAIL'S GRFA REGULATIONS The purpose of the GRFA Analysis is to evaluate potential alternatives to the Town's existing zoning regulations that control the bulk and mass of residential buildings, specifically Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) zoning regulations. This report has been prepared to provide background information to the Town Council, Planning Commission and public as an initial step in the evaluation of the Town's GRFA system and the consideration of alternatives to GRFA. This report provides a general overview of the rationale for regulating building bulk and mass and the zoning techniques commonly used to implement such regulations; summarizes the Town's current system of bulk and mass control; outlines the evolution of the Town's GRFA regulations; assesses bulk and mass regulations of other resort communities; and describes five conceptual alternatives to the existing GRFA system. Three major areas of concern identified by the Town regarding the existing GRFA system that have prompted this evaluation are: 1) GRFA as a Means for Controlling Building Size The size and shape of buildings (bulk and mass) are currently controlled by GRFA, site coverage and building height regulations and to an extent by the design review process. It has been suggested that GRFA is the least effective mechanism for controlling the size and shape of buildings and that site coverage and building height regulations can provide adequate control. 2) Time Required to Administer the Current System A considerable amount of staff, homeowner, architect and contractor time is spent explaining the system, calculating GRFA of proposed buildings and monitoring the construction of new buildings. Questions have been raised as to whether the effort necessary to administer GRFA is an efficient use of staff and applicant time. 3) 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.concerns.will be identified by the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process: GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. I I) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from the community, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town staff; 2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regulations which control the size and shape of buildings are necessary; 3) This process will address single-family, duplex and primarylsecondary residential development only; 4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable alternative. H. 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 Staucftircl 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 QF 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. I .. Lot Coverage Controls Lot coverage controls directly affect building bulk and mass by limiting the proportion of a in 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. BuildingHeight eight 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 eave lines to either existing or finished grade below. in addition to quantitative standards, design guidelines are often used to encourage varied roof planes and building heights. 3. Floor Area Controls Floor area controls influence building bulk and mass and intensity of use by limiting the amount of floor area permitted on a site. A variety of methodologies are used to regulate floor area of a building: GRFA 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, bulk and orientation of structures. 5. Design Review Each of the four quantitative standards described above influence the bulk and mass of a building. However, even with these parameters the perceived bulk and mass of a structure depends on a number of other design considerations. The bulk and mass of a structure can be influenced by the placement and relationship of building forms and voids in building facades; the setting, or context of the structure; the proportion and scale of windows, bays, doorways, and other features; shadow patterns; building articulation and offsets; location and treatment of entryways, variations of building height and roof lines; facade details; and the use of materials, finishes and textures. Design guidelines are often used as a complement to quantitative standards to address these ^ types of design considerations. The design review process is 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 VaiI's existing system of -controlling the•bulk and mass of residential buildings utilizes three zoning tools. The Town's definitions of site coverage, building height and GRFA are included at the end of this report. • GRFA. ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 4 I ) 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 Hei+fit Allowable building height in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build-up or elevate a site. Allowable building heights are uniform in the single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot. 3) GRFA The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only. GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number of bedrooms) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces_ Maximum allowable GRFA in the single-family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 25 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per - Unit is also allowed. The Town's "250 Ordinance" also allows for an 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, proportion, site planning . . .". There are no guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. The zoning standards listed above are evaluated by the Planning Staff as a part of their review of proposed developments: This evaluation -occurs prior -to review by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Final design review approval can not be obtained unless a project complies with GRFA, site coverage, building height and other zoning standards. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 5 IV. EVOLUTION OF VAIIL'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 buildiny height or site coverage limitations. Ord. 8, 1973 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 1973 which established height definition based on average distance of the finished grade at lowest point, mid -point and highest point of exterior wall; established minimum distances between buildings in various zone districts; established graduated scale to determine allowable GRFA; and established an absolute maximum GRFA for duplex structures of 4,000 square feet. Ord. 30, 1977 Reduced allowable densities (allowable units) in most residential zone districts. Ord. 50, 1978 Reduced allowable building height in single-family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts to 30% reduced allowable density and GRFA in RC, LDMF and MDMF districts. Ord. 37 1980 Modified definition of GRFA by excluding crawl spaces with less than 6' 6" clearance; adding garage credit for single-family, duplex and p/s development; definition of height changed to distance between ridge and existing or finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping roofs in single-family, duplex and p/s districts. Ord. 41. 1 282 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, 1995 Established the "250 ordinance" allowing for additions of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to homes that are at least five years old. GRFA ANAI,YSIS/PREIyIMCNARY REPORT • Braun Associates, Inc. F Ord -36, 1988 Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwcliing involves the "complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof". Ord. 9, 1991 Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance was denied. Ord. 15, 1991 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 I980 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 ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. Bulk and Mess Controls • Floor Area Limitations The Town does not limit the floor • 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. • Design Review While not referred to as a design review process, the Town does evaluate site planning and architectural considerations during the review of development in outlying residential areas. Landscaping, building colors and materials, and other zoning considerations (height, driveway grades, etc.) for compliance with adopted standards and guidelines. The bulk and mass of a structure is also considered for proposals that exceed two levels. Other Considerations The Town has averaged 32 permits for new single-family and duplex units in each of the last three years. The average size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single-family development is relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single-family homes involves staff review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council, Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single-family zone districts (RS- 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 Coveraze Site coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area and includes the footprint of the building only as measured at exterior walls. Building Heiriht Buildings are limited to 7.6 meters (25 feet) and is measured from grade to the mean level between the cave and the ridge. 0 ORFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 8 Desig=n Review The Town does not have a design review process. Other Considerations Based on comments from the planning staff, the type and intensity of single-family development varies, The floor area of some, but not all, homes is "maxed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature of how floor area is defined. The Town's by-laws do not allow for variance requests to density or floor area. Town of Asper, 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 eave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. Design'Reyiew 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 ANALYSISlPRELIMINARY 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 cave 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. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 10 Site Coverage -There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. Building 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. 0 Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creek does not limit the floor area of single-family homes. Site Coverage Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within platted building envelopes. Building Height Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid -point between the ridge and cave 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. 11 in the size of homes that have been built in Beaver Creek, a more direct factor is probably the way building height is measured. Beaver Creek's method of averaging building height allows for very large building mass on one or more elevations of a building. Sun Valley, Idaho Sun Valley is predominantly a second -home community with much of the local population residing in either Ketchum or Haley. Residential development trends in Sun' Valley have been quite similar to Vail, Aspen and other Colorado resort communities. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations There are no floor area limitations in Sun Valley's low density residential zone districts. • Site 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. V I . CONCEPTUAL BULK AND MASS ALTERNATIVES Five conceptual alternatives to the Town's existing GRFA system are described below. These alternatives are assessed relative to how each responds to the three primary issues of concern with the existing GRFA system. Zoning implications with regard to the implementation of the alternative, potential pros and cons of the alternative and other issues to consider regarding the alternative are also discussed. These five conceptual, alternatives are..not intended -to be a finite last -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. 0 GRFA ANALYs15/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 ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 13 Conceptual Alternative #2 - "Conversion of Interior a e" i 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 Is.Sues 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 40 within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Could prevent illegal conversions and ensure that work is done in conformance with building code standards. • Could increase the number of building applications and the amount of staff time required to implement the GRFA system. • This alternative may result in new homes being designed such that new interior space could be converted to GRFA in the future (i.e. vaulted spaces are designed in new construction to allow for future conversion to GRFA), the end result of which would be buildings designed as if there -were -.no GRFA•Iimit at all.- Consideration ll Consideration should be given to pot allowing the conversion of existing garage space to GRFA. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT 40 Braun Associates, Inc. 14 Conceptual Alternative #3 - Elimination of GRFA/Addition of Design Guidelines Description of Alternative This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings. GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two units. With this amendment the bulk and mass of single-family and duplex development would be controlled by site coverage and building height only. In order to provide assurances to prevent the development of large, non-descript boxes, this alternative would also include new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off -sets, scale, etc. Objective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to address each of the three issues identified with the current GRFA system. This alternative would place the burden of controlling bulk and mass on site coverage, building height and design guidelines. Zoning. Tmnlications 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 Issue, • 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 building height, resulting in large/box-like structures. Eliminating GRFA could allow for additional development on lots that may result in impacts on adjoining properties. • Site coverage would become the primary limiting factor for controlling building size, with the elimination of-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. 0 GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY 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. Qbj tive 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. 0 Other Considerations • This alternative would indirectly create additional allowable GRFA for many properties. Basement space that was previously calculated as GRFA would no longer be considered GRFA under this alternative, thereby creating new GRFA that could be utilized above grade. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 16 Conceptual Alternative #5 - Volurnetric Control Description of Alternative, In lieu of using square footage as a means of controlling bulk and mass, this system would rely on the volume of above -grade interior space expressed in cubic feet. This alternative would require all applications to be submitted in CAD (computer aided design) form. A CAD program would be utilized to calculate the volume of the building. Objective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to provide a more accurate method of regulating the bulk and mass of buildings. Zoning 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 cf 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 uti-lize.such a system.. GRFA ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 17 Attachment 2 Issues with Current GRFA. System Effectiveness of GRFA as a Means for Controlling Buildine Size • Mixed opinions as to whether GRFA is an effective bulk and mass control General agreemcnt that GRFA is less effective than site coverage and building height 7Cime Re u.ired to administer Current System • Little to no concern with staff time required to implement system Some concern with time required for applicant ApproDriatentss of Rellulating Interior Space • Clear lack of consensus with "appropriateness" issue • Discussion lead to other issues, i.e. LHU's, "locals", etc. ethers Issues Is the size of homes being built in Vail appropriate, arc 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 better 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" Descri.)tlon of Alternative Leave the existing GRFA. system in place, no changes would be made to allowable GRFA. or the definition of GRFA Group Consensus Very little suppoil for this alternative, fairly strong consensus that some action is needed • Question 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 '�Leaafives • Does not control bulk and mass • GRFA limits design; creativity • GR.FA. doesn't account for vaulted space System is too complex, cumbersome • There must be a par€abIcna or we wouldn't be here 0 Conceptual Alternative #2 i 0 "Conversion of Interior Space" Rt5criptlon of Altunative • Allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided there is no change to bulk and mass of home. +roup_ _Consensus • Fairly strong consensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution Positives • 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 eliminating "illegal" conversions • System will remain complex and cumbersome, but end result will be worth U,oublc Te ativPC • System will remain complex, cumbersome • People will design homes for future conversion of space es Should multi -family units have same opportunity? How to deal with skylights, dormers, etc. • Need to address parking, other zoning issues Possibly allow only for EHU's • Possibly allow only for homes in existence at time ordinance is adopted Conceptual Alternative ## - larninatinn of GRFAII Descnof Utes ilye • Eliminate GRFA, adopt new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building form, off -sets, scale, etc. Group Consensus Fair amount of very cautious, I ighly 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 Negatives * Nccd GRFA as part of total package for c:vntrulling bulk and mass Design review process is inconsistent, can not provide adequate level of control Design review standards will limit creativity Exulunating GRFA will allow for/encourage large, non- descript boxes Potentially adverse impact on neighborhoods, conununit-y 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 Conceptual Alternative 44 - "Eliminate 46 Basement Space as FA." Description of A, ternaive_ • 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 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 atives i Potential loopholes with defining "basement" -- • Doesn't directly address bulk and mass issue Potential for additional bulk and mass above grade Could allow for huge subterranean home Administrative nightmare to determine what is below grade, adds to cumbersome nature of existing system, Issues Must have "basement" clearly defined Need to address parking, other zoning issues Conceptual Alternative # olumetric Control Description of Alter aaflye * Utilize CAI) to calculate, regulate volume of interior space Group Consensus, Could be most effective, accurate control ► Fay to complicated, difficult, burdensume on applicant I* Other Alternatives 46 1) Increase GRFA ratio 2) Increase GRFA ratio for Smaller lots 3) Don't count GRFA used for EHU's 4) Simplify definition, i.e. eliminate all credits and m* LTease ratio S) 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 0 7) Combine proposed Alt_ #2 .and Alt. #4 S) 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 only • 1U1HL N.UU • TO: Vail Town Council MEMORANDUM FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing GRFA regulations for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. This memo will describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under each alternative; and will identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each alternative. On March 10th, the PEC, in a 4-3 vote, recommended alternative 1 with several conditions. At the April 1 st Council worksession, staff will review the alternatives along with the recommendations from the PEC and staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, staff would like to ask for Council's preferred alternative. Once Council decides on a preferred alternative staff will begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code revisions. It. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? The givens for this process include: A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and recommendations from the PEC and staff. B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass. C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and primarylsecondary type structures). D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative. E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size. F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity. • III. BACKGROUND 16 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 31 st 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 heeded. One commissioner that supported alternative three, felt that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA is needed. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4 (allow interior modifications and eliminate basement space in GRFA calculations, respectively). Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that homeowners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. Council reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority/preference) in more detail: • Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. • Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. • Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should not significantly increase bulk and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. In addition, several Council members were interested in exploring how vaulted space could be better addressed in the Town's regulations. Attached is a revised analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative could be implemented and issues that would need to be considered prior to implementation. • 2 • 0 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 11 Analyze how to implement alternatives and identif the im acts of each alternative 4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January 1996/1997 s) PEG 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 ist, 1997 if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession Phase 411 8) 9) Legislative Review of preferred alternaiive assumes code modifications Staff prepares language to modify Town Code April, 1997 PEC: worksession to consider code revisions 10) PEC: public hearing 11) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to the existing GRFA regulations 12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance 13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance 3 Following dates to be determined V CURRENT IMPACT OF 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 prim arylsecondary, 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= 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 EH U (per lot). G. 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: In • TABLE 1 46 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 10,001-15,000 18.73% 25.24% 115 155 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 8.35% 39 35,001-40,000 3.28% 20 40,001 + 8.14% 50 Totals: 100% 611 F. 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 is 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 darts solid line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA" lines reflect the rancle 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 -tor the 1st 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. L' 25,000 26.00D Cr lrNow m Figure 1 Floor Area Comparision 5,000 0 o S 8 o o og' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 o O O O O O O C S$S$g$g _ W O m n 1�- m— co Ln r, 6 N Q w ca © N LD co O Lot Area (sq 1L) VI- ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES: A. Alternative 1 - Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GRFA + Credits PO GRFA,(LaM - - — W 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 homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. • • 2) Staff recommends that a home have no remaining GRFA before doing interior 4 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 3-Eliminale GRFA This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to controlling bulk and mass for single family, duplex, and primaryfsecondary 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 dot area between 19,000-40,000 square feet + 4% for lot area above 40,000 square feet 7 12,000 10.000 s,000 4 o 6,000 a 4,000 2,000 Figure 2 46 Reduced Site Coverage 4 4 4 G O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O G 6 O O P o O O O O 4 GN- �Op CL C O m' N N N iM7 m V � l[i 47 Ln Lot Area GRFA+Credits - _ - --NO 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 60140 split in the Village) 4) Parking standards are currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would have to be created. 5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the Design Review Board. Staff would recommend that a minimum of two members of the board be architects or landscape architects. 6) Many existing subdivisions (such as Spraddle Creek) have recorded maximum GRFA limits on the plat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that homes did not exceed those limits or significantly reduce development rights. 7) Eliminating GRFA could also eliminate the current floor area incentive for creating an EHU. This incentive could potentially be created using site coverage (credit) or some other incentive. 8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illegal conversions/remodels that occur without a building permit. D. No Action Taking no action on this project is also an alternative. It does not address any of the issues or concerns that have been raised in this process. It would maintain the exiting system of controlling GRFA, site coverage, height, and design. 8 • 0 E. Summary of Alternatives Table 2 Rummary of Allernatives 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 4 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 Aft 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 90r% built out -is it too late to change? No Action GRFA does Would not No change to No change Same as Most people not control address this complexity or above like the way design but it problem staff time homes look in does control Vail mass of homes on large lots. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that involves looking at the original problems public input, Council direction, and requires trying to forecast how developers and home builders would react under different alternatives. During public meetings, the community said they generally feel good about how homes look and staff would very much agree with that in most cases. People generally feel that additional design guidelines are needed to improve consistency in the decision making of the DRB. In addition, people felt that something should be done to allow home owners to make reasonable modifications to the interior of their homes without changing the exterior. The majority of the people participating in the public meetings felt that GRFA should be eliminated and the Town should only regulate the exterior design and massing of a home. However, there were many that felt the existing system worked effectively and should not be changed at this late date in Vail's development. Staff does feel that improved design guidelines as identified on pages 5 and 6 of Tom Braun's attached paper would help improve consistency and equity within the decision making process for the Design Review Board. Staff strongly recommends that these types of changes need to be implemented regardless of which alternative is chosen. Staff feels that adequate flexibility can be provided in these types of guidelines so as to not hinder creative design, while providing better criteria for the Design Review Board. With respect to the alternatives, and which alternative most significantly addresses the problems identified in this project, staff feels that alternative 3, eliminate GRFA, has the greatest value (with several caveats): A) Additional work is needed to determine how to best modify site coverage to prevent homes from significantly increasing in size. Site coverage would have to be modified to ensure that homes would not significantly increase in size. B) Improved design guidelines (which might include new height restrictions) will be needed to also ensure that building mass does not significantly increase. Staff would assist DRB and review projects based on these criteria. C) DRB should be comprised of at least 2 design professionals (i.e, architect, landscape architect). D) Parking requirements will have to be further examined. E) Need to examine how to provide an incentive for creating employee housing units. Alternative 3 places an emphasis on controlling the exterior of a home, which has a public value, and moves the Town away from regulating the interior of a home. Alternative 1 would address many of the issues raised in this project. However, it is not logical to apply alternative 1 to future projects knowing that the interior spaces could be modified once a certificate of occupancy is issued. If alternative 1 were chosen as the preferred alternative, then staff would recommend it only apply to existing homes built before the date this regulation would go into effect. The major concern staff has with alternative 1 is that there is the issue of equity with homes that would be built in the future and owners wanting to fill in vaulted or crawl space after receiving a certificate Of occupancy. 10 0 Vlll PEC RECOMMENDATION: Table 3 summarizes the members of the PEC's stated preferences for each alternative. The numbers in Table 3 reflect how many PEC members voted for an alternative with respect to a preference. Table 3 PEC Preferences 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 t 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. 6 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 t 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. 6 BA !/ BRAUN ASSOCIATES. INC. 0 PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Russ Forest FROM: Tom Braun DATE: February 6, 1997 RE: Phase H of GRFA Analysis Attached you will find. the Phase II 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 Lan>ivage 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 meed 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 Buildmg Phone - 970.827.5797 201 Main Street. 2nd Floor Fax - 970.827.5507 Post Office Box 776 Minturn, Colorado 81645 a a 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. h used 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 bulk and mass include, but are not limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window - wells. • Proposals for the utilization of additional. GRFA under this provision shall comply With all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards. • If the proposal involves the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking space to GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on-site parking spaces. Phase IIIGRFA 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 ali 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 aver -sized void spaces in basement Ievels 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. Recauire new construction (homes completed after adoption of this ordinance) to wait a certain time period prior to utilizing 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 adapted This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. Limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted eliminates any potential concern with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it fair to deny an owner who builds in the future the same opportunity available to other homeowners? Phase II/GRFA Analysis s 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%v 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 IIfGRFA Analysis CALCULATION OF BASEMENT SPACE Building Cross-section Point where basement level is 6' below grade Slab on grade Point where basement level is 6' below grade Basement Level 25' 1,254 sq. ft. 50' Basement Level Floor Plan CALCULATION 150'- LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL 50'- PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL COR 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 t Alternative #3 - Eliminate GRFA Description of Alternative This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings. In order to prevent the development of large, non- descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standards for larger lots and new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing GRFA regulations would remain in place for structures that contain more than two dwelling units. Issues to be Addressed Based on input from the community, the PEC and the Town Council, the major issues to address relative to the potential implementation of this alternative are: • Assurances/controls must be established to prevent the design and construction of large, non-descript box -like structures. • The DRB must be capable of interpreting and implementing any proposed modifications to the design guidelines. • Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript box -like structures must not stifle design creativity. Proposed Language This alternative would involve four major elements: 1) Initiate a "global search" of the zoning code to identify all references to GRFA pertaining to single-family, duplex and primary/secondary development. Examples of these references include: • the definition of GRFA for buildings containing two or fewer units, and • the reference to GRFA in the density section of single family, duplex and primary/secondary zone districts. 2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units: • A minimum of three (3) off street parking spaces shall be provided for each single family unit or for each dwelling unit within a duplex or primary/secondary structure. Parking requirements for Type II, III and IV EHU's shall be as per the EHU Ordinance. 3) New site coverage regulations to limit the site coverage (and size) of homes on large lots: Site coverage shall not exceed the total of: 1) 20% of the total site area for lots 25,000 square feet or less, plus 2) 10% of the total site area for any portion of a lot in excess of 25,000 square feet. With the exception of lots that exceed 30% slope, site coverage of 20% is currently permitted on all lots regardless of size. The proposal below would introduce a graduated scale similar to the 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 IUGRFA Analysis Building Height. Bulk and Mass The size and scale of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes play an important role in defining the character of neighborhoods and the overall visual image of a community. Building height and site coverage regulations outlined in the Vail Zoning Code establish quantitative standards which limit the overall size, or bulk and mass of buildings. Notwithstanding these quantitative standards, site specific features such as vegetation and topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the perceived bulk and mass of a building. An underlying goal for the design of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes in Vail is to ensure that buildings convey a human scale and are sensitive to their site. Large, monumental buildings which in the determination of the DRB dominate their site and express excessive bulk and mass are not permitted. The following guidelines are designed to accomplish these goals by establishing parameters to ensure appropriate building bulk and mass. These guidelines apply to all single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes: Building Height Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two-story building mass. Three-story massing may be approved by the DRB, however, large expanses of continuous three-story building mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed 50% of the floor area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off -sets should be provided to reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the building. Building Form In lieu of large, monumental building mass, buildings should be designed as either a composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one primary building mass in conjunction with one or more secondary building forms. Rid els ines Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the characteristics of a site and the design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50-70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a predominantly one to two-story building mass. Building Scale A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human -scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: • Dormers • Decks and balconies • Roof overhangs • Fenestration Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more clearly expressed in graphic form. Phase IPGRFA Analysis C! 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 "Iarge, 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 ii/GRFA 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. ._.J.»...V­ _J V.........1 .,.-.,_,_v "L4fY t�utcilt�F��fV/IJW. 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. C] 0 Town of Vail nR�l Potential Design Guide o Analysis R,idgelines 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 5040' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Variations in roof ridgelines provide variety and breaks -up building mass created by continuous ridgeline. -7So-1o' Ridgelines greater than 50'-70' should be off- set at least Y-4'. e. e �I Via- �• :+ ,w, .ter. . Change in ridge line elevation and orientation creates two aisicrtLl building forms and breaks up building mass. l, it is not suggested that hese exact These sketches are from design guidelines for pro}acts outside oiehllu atesohowisketches coulld be used to reinforce the sketches be used for GItFA relateher, this exa d eg gn guidelinestproposed for the "no grfa" alternative. 1 l 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 predominantly o story building m Building mass should be "benched" into the hillside. - 4 '4770 f Other Issues Relative to GRFA Amendments 1. Amendments for EMU's and Permanent Residents Only During previous discussions comments were made to allow the provisions of these alternatives in conjunction with the development of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Vail.. These are Town Council policy decisions. The information outlined above addresses the technical aspects of each alternative. Limiting the applicability of these provisions to only EHU's and/or permanent residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process which was to: Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size Address the time required to administer the current system Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space Limiting the applicability of any GRFA amendment to either encourage EHU's or for the benefit of permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives. 2. Vaulted Space One recognized short -coming of GRFA is that it regulates floor area and not building volume and as a result GRFA does not effectively control building bulk and mass. Aspen is the only community that has been identified which addresses vaulted space with floor area regulations. The Aspen code essentially applies a multiplier to the floor area of vaulted space. For example, floor area with 10' plate heights or less count at a ratio of one square foot for each one square foot. For interior areas with a plate height which exceeds 10% the ratio increases by .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 17 • Attachment B G RFA and EH U sections of the Town Code. e f 12 12-15-1 12-15-2 CHAPTER 15 GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) SECTION: , 12-15-1: Purpose 12-15-2: GRFA Requirements By Zone District 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, And Exclusions 12-15-4: Interior Conversions 12-15-5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) 12-15-1: PURPOSE: This Chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the Town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. (Ord. 13(1996) § 3) 12-15-2: GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DISTRICT: 799 Town of Vail GRFA Credits GRFA (Added To Results Of Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage Application Of Percentage) HR 20% of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. + None Hillside Residential 5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. ft. SFR 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit Single -Family Residential 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. R 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit Two -Family Residential 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and up to 30,000 sq. ft. + 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. PS 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft, per allowable dwelling unit Primary/Secondary 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq, ft. and Residential up to 30,000 sq. ft. + 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. (tire secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of GRFA on-site prior to application of credit) 799 Town of Vail 12-15-2 A Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total Agricultural And Open Space OR None permitted Outdoor Recreation 799 Town of Vail 12-15-2 GRFA Credits F . (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentage) 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 22.5 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only r` None None None None None None None None None None None None • GRFA Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage RC 25% of buildable lot area Residential Cluster LDMF 30% of buildable lot area Low Density Multiple - Family MDMF 35% of buildable lot area Medium Density Multiple - Family HDMF 60% of buildable lot area High Density Multiple - Family PA 80% of 'buildable lot area Public Accommodation CC1 80% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 1 CC2 80% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 2 CC3 30% of buildable lot area Commercial Core 3 CSC 40% of buildable lot area Commercial Service GRFA shall not exceed 50% of total Center building floor area on any site ABD 60%0 of buildable lot area Arterial Business HS None permitted Heavy Service LMU-1 Up to 250% of buildable lot area Lionshead Mixed Use 1 LMU-2 Up to 250% of buildable lot area Lionshead Mixed Use 2 A Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total Agricultural And Open Space OR None permitted Outdoor Recreation 799 Town of Vail 12-15-2 GRFA Credits F . (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentage) 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 22.5 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two- family structures only r` None None None None None None None None None None None None • • e 12-15-2 GRFA Zone Districts Ratio/Percentage P None permitted None Parking GU Per PEC approval None General Use NAP None permitted None Natural Area Preservation SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None Ski Base/Recreation SDD Per underlying zoning or per None Special Development development plan approval by Council (Ord. 3(1999) § 8: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-3; DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: A. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, Sheetrock, plas- ter and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay win- dows, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawlspaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be includ- ed in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsection Al or A2 of this Section. 1. Single -Family, Two -Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures: Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as 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. June 2000 I 12-15-3 c. 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. d. Roofed or covered deck, 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.. 2. Multiple -Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth herein. Exclud- ed areas as set forth shall then be deducted from the total square foot- age - a. Enclosed garages to accommo- date on-site parking requirements. b. All or part of the following spac- es, provided such spaces are common spaces: (1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and air locks. (2) Common lobby areas. .dune 2000 Town of Vail 12-15-3 (3) Common enclosed recreation . facilities. (4) Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems solar rock storage areas, or other mechani- cal systems. (5) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only. / (6) Meeting and convention facil- ities. (7) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on-site facilities. (8) Floor area to be used in a Type III "employee housing unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title. c. All or part of an air lock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25) square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. d. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level. e. 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 areas created by construction of a roof with truss -type members will be excluded from calcu- lation as GRFA, provided the trusses f three feet (3') in height and support 12-15-3 12-15-3 purposes, without substantially adding are spaced no greater than thirty inch- a. Distance Above Inside Floor no closer than ten feet (10') apart. es (30") apart. Level: In order for a window to be c. Construction Characteristics: All measured from the outer surface of considered a greenhouse window, a the post. f. Crawlspaces accessible through minimum distance of thirty six inches cial framing or construction methods an opening not greater than twelve (36") must be provided between the (12) square feet in area, with five feet bottom of the window and the floor allowed provided they die into the wall (5') or less of ceiling height, as mea- surface, as measured on the inside primary/secondary structures, com- sured from the surface of the earth to face of the building wall. (Floor sur - window may also be allowed provided the underside of structural floor mem- face shall not include steps necessary bers of the floor/ceiling assembly to meet building code egress require - above. ments.) The thirty six inch (36") mini- shall not be counted as GRFA. greenhouse window shall have a total mum was chosen because it locates window surface area greater than forty g. Roofed or covered decks, porch- the window too high to be comfortably es, terraces, patios or similar features used as a window seat and because it maximum height of a window, in an or spaces with no more than three (3) allows for a typical four foot (4') high exterior walls and a minimum opening greenhouse window to be used in a of not less than twenty five percent room with an eight foot (8') ceiling (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the height. area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, b. Projection: No greenhouse win - provided the opening is contiguous dow may protrude more than eighteen and fully open from floor to ceiling, inches (18") from the exterior surface with an allowance for a railing of up to of the building. This distance allows three feet (3') in height and support for adequate relief for appearance posts with a diameter of eighteen purposes, without substantially adding inches (18") or less which are spaced to the mass and bulk of the building. no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be c. Construction Characteristics: All measured from the outer surface of greenhouse windows shall be self - the post. supporting and shall not require spe- cial framing or construction methods B. Additional Calculation Provisions: for support, with the exception that brackets below the window may be 1. Walls: Interior walls are included in allowed provided they die into the wall GRFA calculations. For two-family and of the building at a forty five degree primary/secondary structures, com- (450) angle. A small roof over the mon party walls shall be considered window may also be allowed provided exterior walls. the overhang is limited to four inches (4') beyond the window plane. 2. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) d. Dimensional Requirement: No shall not be counted as GRFA. greenhouse window shall have a total "Greenhouse windows"' are defined window surface area greater than forty according to the following criteria: four (44) square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an 1-1 June 2000 Town of Vail 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 (B') 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 2000 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 { 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 (60140) 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 24012 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. Lanpth of roof plane Nil Length of dormer �- — - �I jf?-i��1 j���.y��11 -1 .•1'�.r����aa ". r.l�{. Cumulativw Lwnglh of dormor(s) may nol wYc-wd 50% of thw length of tho roof plane. February 2002 Town of Vail • f r� 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. • 1. Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule. 12-15-5 2. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C of this title or as determined, by the department of community develop- ment staff. Applicants need to submit as built floor plans of the structure so that staff can identify the existing building from any new additions that have occurred after the approval of this chapter. 3. Proposals deemed by the depart- ment of community development staff to be in compliance with this section and all applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall be approved by the department of community develop- ment or shall be forwarded to the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. Proposals deemed to not comply with this sec- tion or applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall. be denied. 4. Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this section, applicants shall pro- ceed with securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project. 5. Any' decisions of the department of community development pursuant to this section may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provi- sions of section 12-3-3 of this title. (Ord. 31(2001) § 11: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 16(1998) § 1: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESI- DENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the February 2002 Town of Vail D. Process: Applications shall be made to the department of community devel- opment staff on forms provided by the department. Applications for interior conversions to single-family, two-fami- ly, primary/secondary or multi -family dwelling units located in a special development district (SDD) pursuant to this section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provi- sions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restric- tions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. If the prop- erty is owned in common (condomini- um association) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways, A/B parcels or C parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example, and not limitation, the written approval of - the other property owner, owners or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signa- ture on the application. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition com- plies with all provisions of the interior conversion section. Submittals shall include: • 1. Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule. 12-15-5 2. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C of this title or as determined, by the department of community develop- ment staff. Applicants need to submit as built floor plans of the structure so that staff can identify the existing building from any new additions that have occurred after the approval of this chapter. 3. Proposals deemed by the depart- ment of community development staff to be in compliance with this section and all applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall be approved by the department of community develop- ment or shall be forwarded to the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. Proposals deemed to not comply with this sec- tion or applicable zoning and develop- ment regulations shall. be denied. 4. Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this section, applicants shall pro- ceed with securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project. 5. Any' decisions of the department of community development pursuant to this section may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provi- sions of section 12-3-3 of this title. (Ord. 31(2001) § 11: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 16(1998) § 1: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESI- DENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide an inducement for the February 2002 Town of Vail 12-15-5 12-15-5 upgrading of existing dwelling units 1. Eligible Time Frame: A single-fami- which have been in existence within ly or two-family dwelling unit shall be the town for a period of at least five eligible for additional GRFA, pursuant (5) years by permitting the addition of to this section, if it is in existence prior up to two hundred fifty (250) square to November 30, 1995, or a completed feet of gross residential floor area design review board application for (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provid- the original construction of said unit ed the criteria set forth in this section has been accepted by the department are met. This section does not assure of community development by Novem- each single-family or two-family dwell- ber 30, 1995. in addition, at least five ing unit located within the town an (5) years must have passed from the additional two hundred fifty (250) date the single-family dwelling or two - square feet, and proposals for any family dwelling unit was issued a cer- additions hereunder shall be reviewed tificate of occupancy (whether tempo - closely with respect to site planning, rary or final) or, in the event a certif- impact on adjacent properties, and cate of occupancy was not required applicable town development stan- for use of the dwelling at the time of dards. The two hundred fifty (250) completion, from the date of original square feet of additional gross resi- completion and occupancy of the dential floor area may be granted to dwelling. existing single-family dwellings, exist- ing two-family and existing multi-fami- 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: ly dwelling units only once, but may Proposals for the utilization of the be requested and granted in more additional gross residential floor area than one increment of less than two (GRFA) under this provision shall..: hundred fifty (250) square feet. Up- comply with all town zoning require - grading of an existing dwelling unit ments and applicable development under this section shall include addi- standards. If a variance is required for tions thereto or renovations thereof, a proposal, it shall be approved by the but a demo/rebuild shall not be includ- planning and environmental commis - ed as being eligible for additional sion pursuant to chapter 17 of this title gross residential floor area. before an application is made in ac- cordance with this section. The appli- B,_ Single -Family Dwellings And Two- cant must obtain a building permit Family Dwellings: A single-family or within one year of final planning and two-family dwelling unit shall be eligi- environmental commission approval or ble for additional gross residential the approval for additional GRFA shall floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a be voided. maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA in addition to the 3. Garage Conversions: If any propos- existing or allowable GRFA for the al provides for the conversion of a site. Before such additional GRFA can garage or enclosed parking area to be granted, the single-family or two- GRFA, such conversion will not be family dwelling unit shall meet the allowed unless: a) either the conver- following criteria: sion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces below the February 2002 Town of Vail 799 Town of Vail 12-15-5 12-15-5 GRFA under this Code. Plans for a additional GRFA until such time as all new garage or enclosed parking area, the allowable GRFA has been con - if required, shall accompany the appli- structed on the property, or an appli- cation under this Section, and shall be cation is presently pending in conjunc- constructed concurrently with the tion with the application for additional conversion. GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 5. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 8. One -Time Grant: Any single-family 10 of this Title due to any GRFA addi- or two-family dwelling unit which has tion pursuant to this Section shall be previously been granted additional met by the applicant. GRFA pursuant to this Section and is demo/rebuild, shall be rebuilt without 5. Conformity With Guidelines: All the additional GRFA as previously proposals under this Section shall be approved. required to conform to the design review guidelines set forth in Chapter 9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any 11 of this Title. A single-family or two- single-family or two-family dwelling family dwelling unit for which an addi- unit which is to be demo/rebuild shall tion is proposed shall be required to not be ehglbie for additional GRFA. meet the minimum Town landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 11 of C. Multi -Family Dwellings: Any dwelling this Title. Before any additional GRFA unit in a multi -family structure that may be permitted in accordance with meets allowabie GRFA shall be eligi- this Section, the staff shall review the ble for additional gross residential maintenance and upkeep of the exist- floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a ing single-family or two-family dwelling maximum of two hundred fifty (250) and site, including landscaping, to square feet of GRFA in addition to the determine whether they comply with existing or allowable GRFA for the the design review guidelines. No tem- site. Any application of such additional porary certificate of occupancy shall GRFA must meet the following crite- be issued for any expansion of GRFA ria: pursuant to this Section until all re- quired improvements to the site and 1. Eligible Time Frame: A multiple - structure have been completed as family dwelling unit shall be eligible required. for additional GRFA, pursuant to this Section, if it is in existence prior to 7. Applicability: No pooling of gross November 30, 1995, or a completed residential floor area shall be allowed Design Review Board application for in single-family or two-family dwelling the original construction of said unit units. No application for additional has been accepted by the department GRFA shall request more than two of Community Development by No - hundred fifty (250) square feet of vember 30, 1995. In addition, at least gross residential floor area per single- five (5) years must have passed from family dwelling or two-family dwelling, the date the building was issued a nor shall any application be made for certificate of occupancy (whether 799 Town of Vail 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 witli 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. 3. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this Section if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said en- closed parking area. 4. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Section shall be met by the appli- cant. 5. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with the de- sign review guidelines as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. Existing prop- erties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 11 of this Title. 799 Town of'Vail 12-i 5-5 { 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 I 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. 7. Applicability: The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA I additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi -family dwellings. No applica- tion for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allow- able GRFA has been constructed on the property. The use of additional GRFA by individual dwelling unit own- ers, pursuant to the additional GRFA provisions, is permitted only when one hundred percent (100°!x) of the owners in the structure are also proposing to utilize their additional GRFA as well. When exterior additions are proposed to a multi -family structure, the addition of the GRFA shall be designed and t 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: 3. Compliance Determined: If the Any building which has previously Department of Community Develop - been granted additional GRFA pursu- ment staff determines that the site for ant to this Section and is demo/re- which the application was submitted is build, shall be rebuilt without the addi- in compliance with Town landscaping tional GRFA as previously approved. and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 9. Demo/Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple -family structure or dwelling a. Application for GRFA additions unit which is to be demo/rebuild shall which involve no change to the exteri- not be eligible for additional GRFA. or of a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Com - D. Procedure: munity Development. 1. Application; Content: Application b. Applications for GRFA additions shall be made to the Department of involving exterior changes to a build - Community Development on forms ing shall be reviewed and approved by provided by the Department of Com- the Design Review Board in accor- munity Development, by the condo- dance with the provisions of this Sec - minium association or a similar gov- tion. erning body and shall include: 4. Compliance Required: If the De - a. A fee pursuant to the current partment of Community Development schedule shall be required with the staff determines that the site for which application. additional GRFA is applied for pursu- ant to this Section does not comply b. Information and plans as set with minimum Town landscaping or forth and required by subsection site standards as provided herein, the 12-11-4C of this Title. applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such stan- c. Any other applicable information 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 Ilona[ GRFA, the Design Review brought into compliance with said Board shall set a date for a hearing in Town minimum standards, which accordance with 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. 799 Town of Vail 12-15-5 12-15-5 7991 5. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of additional GRFA. (Ord. 16(1998) § 2: Ord. 1.3(1997) § 3) Town of Vail • 12-13-1 CHAPTER 13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING SECTION:. 12-13-1: Purpose 12-13-2: Applicability 12-1.3-3: General Requirements 12-13-4: Requirements By Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type 12-13-1: PURPOSE: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on ex- emplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working condi- tions. Availability and affordability of hous- ing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recog- nizes 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, 11, 111, And V: Town 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 4. No later than February 1 of each _ year, the owner of each employee r 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. S. The provisions set forth in this subsection A shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limita- tions, Reporting Requirements - Type IV: All Type IV employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and sub - June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-3 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 r 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. S. The provisions set forth in this subsection A shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limita- tions, Reporting Requirements - Type IV: All Type IV employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and sub - June 2000 Town of Vail IB ,June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-3 12-13-3 stance acceptable to the Town Man- D. Application Requirements: ager and Town Attorney. tures of all owners of the property whether located in a required setback 1. Applicants for a conditional use C. Development Standards: permit for the purpose of constructing ing required by this Code is reduced employee housing shall not be re- l. No property containing an EHU quired to pay a conditional use permit shall exceed the maximum GRFA application fee or design review appli- permitted in this Title except as spe- cation fee. cifically provided herein. unit, it it is constructed in conjunction 2. EHU applications requiring a condi- 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. tional use permit are subject to review wise compatible with the surrounding 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. lock -off units which exist as of the view Board shall review such requests 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. IB ,June 2000 Town of Vail 5. An EHU may be located in, or at- 4. Applications for a Type II 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 (i.e., both sides of a duplex) or there or not), provided that no existing park- shall be a letter accompanying the ing required by this Code is reduced application from all owners agreeing or eliminated. A Type I EHU which to the addition of an employee hous- has five hundred (500) square feet or ing unit. Applications will not be ac - less of GRFA may be considered for cepted unless this provision is met. physical separation from the primary unit, it it is constructed in conjunction 5. Any existing legal nonconforming with a two (2) car garage and is other- dwelling unit in the Town may be wise compatible with the surrounding converted to an EHU administratively properties, does not have an adverse by the Town without obtaining a condi- impact on vegetation, and does not tional use permit. Dwelling units and dominate the street. The Design Re- lock -off units which exist as of the view Board shall review such requests date hereof but which are noncon- for separation. forming with respect to density and GRFA may be converted to a con - 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or forming EHU administratively by the kitchenette and a bathroom. Town, as long as they otherwise com- ply with the development standards 7. Occupancy of an employee housing and parking requirements found here - unit shall be limited to the maximum in and comply with the building code of two (2) persons per bedroom. requirements of the Town. Upon being IB ,June 2000 Town of Vail 12-13-3 12-13-3 converted to an EHU per this Section, . such dwelling units shall be consid- ered legally conforming EHUs and shall be governed by all requirements of this Chapter, E. Enforcement Provisions: All employee housing units governed by this Title shall be operated and maintained in accordance with this Title. Failure to do so may result in enforcement pro- ceedings in a court of competent juris- diction and in accordance with Chap- ter 3 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 1) June 2000 Town of Vail y R ti a N - O c7] o N O O W @ w z � � C F a w a _ N ca m rn w m m w t y CO co `c g N a rnCD ° r r w �. 0 J c E CD C O. N w (D ?. � c� S � CD to .�' � '@ IQ _a 10 O Co CD w =rw J C p Q 9] fn d y N w w m m v, •c .+. m O w'0 0 -- O -i w = a y J µ @ 00 C %u N U J @ fll H � 0 w— w@ O C tp N CCL tts N @ O (D Q O® O j@ T n @ ® m wa w C o �'w Do 4 fn @ CL ' pr O Q ° 7 au f ID➢a z a a a � m TS 0w m CD m �o Aa@ G? w @ 0 0(D , (D Q w a (n As C. Q CP CL h iQ N u (N v p �D- M a @ 2- ;E =O(D rz 7.� y0co r. w @ o @ (D w N 7 7C J J' Fr =rto CD w IN b N a Cf) O 4 @ S C7 @ (ZI w Q �- (D J :3 3 C CL v fTl Cm D O N t -y J w p o Q CL to J `C @ J- 'O"p NG qp N J � J .0 C. N -0 6 �• C @ m H @ 1� CL W N j W A `[ m m = _ C L7 D C)CiC?C3Z7r m tor..r fl -0 ro n` c_ > j o a N N m m N v m m m D mom `c m]© rn m 0 o m n n 7 N N vi IIi N N -` C W Q P1 CL a. CO tt� P7 ¢7 su ® 3 m ` CSC �_ tai a �C N N@ zi 77 N r N N m �, o Z5wN .� 4 a a — �p .n.. a m , w a` C C CaN o �? w m f° O N w 3 Q m Q w m _ � 21 Cm m C' N r (E m CD O O N AF n ➢ a 2 5 W Q Q O D 7 a 7 `w Q Cn N Z w r � 4 ago g m m O nn C=) ra 0 y 0- cn CDCD w a a cn m c � � m m to � Q =jom ca C] w m w p BOO m w© c a N m a p cn N i'w (0 f v M< w o 0 3 0 03 1 ca T6 D 0 33y ny 3 0 0 tZ p3p�� (D Cy N N 3 a 3 `a oa o c a c c T. 3 3 cn 3° a 4 w o a cn m c rn o z o N . 1D C • a a N w � N N j W A 1 0 f.: 11 a m m z — c cn, 57;?zF z 6 m m 3 m° c (C ti N C .�.. a £1, 7 7� 7 a m v n m a cQ C) C � o C 9 Q m tD N O N 7 Q C .N N 6 fF1 •--� O_. N CD Co W 7 7 m — ® C3 C rn Q T CX Q N ® LA `x 10 O O U — CD m D G} mCL Q = z a m o C p O D 47, y> C) 7 p' r a 0. Q z a a m a. r C m CD CD AQP Ul CD CD 7 E@ N 61 Q N m C z CDD iUCD 4 0` O 3 4 N C7 N G W © Q _Q O E; m [O m m v: ° CA o f m CD CD O W 9J N zy � N SDjSD N o X CD O 0 © ' 3 -PFr 3 C m c� T n C n Q Fr C)ID 7 G {Op O 0 Z CA O N C— CD m N 0 0 0 1 m CD z — C A? 37�N E ED CO g CL CL In v C @ Y 7 m O `< = N N N v m C ? y D N m 0 ID va 'C ,p a. m 4 a pr N m {� 0 " g m o o w n o m .0 a C p C. C -0 N m CD o a o n a m O Q m CL o_ -m _ D a v C y o p 0 w o u� m --j mN__w m Cl)� 'r- CD `[ a3 �' L, c" n c m S as 30. CiD 9-^_m m D : no. c p n m y w o °® m O m +!�., a m o Q- m 4 Q W ti C, rn Q m G y m o m C7 N m 0 c 0 p m y C w m a 0' w m a5 co m m D a m Cn Q w o o C m o 0 ,n m7=� 3 co 0 D � w< -o � D � w m ro — ;< es C O m �.. 5�! Mto n o 0 3 a n rd, a `� N n w a c m y v '+ w Cl o o� w w m `o o 3 m a cn M = m En w cn Q n 0 aro o m 4® w N m N w fi .A -.GD 4 SU w w C a 1 _'< RE m m o C w CA a w m � o O D D r m o m N C M D 7 D. Cm] 'p p C CJ m 7 �. n N m C w � 7 � i Attahcment C Email from Vail Fire Department 13 With respect to Vail Fire & Emergency Services' position on GRFA, I make the following comments and observations 1-GRFA has resulted in numerous situations in which we find fire alarm and fire sprinkler controls being installed in inaccessible locations, some of which pose a serious threat to fire fighter safety. The restrictions on a property owner's use of space within the exterior perimeterof 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 aliowable 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 its 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 otherfactors), a fire in a concealed combustible space presents a much more difficult condition. The effect of limiting usable space within the exterior perimeter of the house has resulted in owners concealing what would normally be habitable space. These concealments often include dropped ceiling, enclosed airspaces 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. A fire inside a cold roof, inside a wall, or inside a concealed combustible space, increases the projected loss to the structure several fold. VFES has had to order, on several occasions, that the space be sheet rocked, provided with fire detection, and/or fire sprinklers be installed. These concealed spaces are not well addressed in the codes, Building or Fire codes, because the anticipated frequency is anticipated to be quite small. The imposition of GRFA has dramatically increased the size, frequency and potential severity due fire, by virtue of the need to enclose interior space to comply with the restrictions. Recommendation: Fire protection and mechanical equipment should not be included in GRFA calculations. The Building Dept and Fire Dept can help insure the allowance is not abused. Concealed spaces should be limited in number and size, and fire rated. A##achr7_ria: C GRFA and Site Coverage Analysis for PIS and R Zoned Properties Only Name Legal Address Zoning Loi Size GRFA r_t•:'A % Site Cov Site Cov% Year nlck Lot 19, Block 6, 'Jail Inlertrlaoaaaata x§35"6assnydaie 8 21 Z475, Li"0 1,270 15%n 199$1 H uerta Lot 9. Block. 6, Vail IntcrmounWrr003 Befiflawer o H3 l �54 15°'0 1999; -L Mauzy Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Irate mountain 2!04 Larkspur C t,rt f'rS 9,%'3.3 2,C33 ?t % 1,367 14% 1997; a Larson - Lot 8, Block 2, Va4 IntermounL'1in" `�,_ p ; 7685 Larkspur Lana Pis 9,811 2_.;.C3 29% 1,668 , 17% 1997 Cauphinais-Moselay Lot 48, VVWest 1st 1880 W. Gore Crerk Dr Pis 10.013.0 3.8 E, 3S% 2,00.1 20% 2002. .Blandford - Lot 13, Vail Village West ut Piing 1798 Alpine Drive Pis 10 4°C 2 410 23% 1.624 16% -1998. Middleton Lot 23, Vail Village. West 2"' 1865 W. Gare Creek Or - PIS 10 499 3.2u5 - 31 `% 1.365 13% 1997. 'iron Hawk Lot 9. Block 1. Vail Village 8th 126 Hornsilver Circe PIS 14,833 e,28 46%- 2,126 20% 2001 hlcKeeta Lot 14, Vail Village West Filing 41 1808 Alpine Drive PS 14,616 3 31.5 28%, 1,278 12%4 1998 Zellman Lot 18, Vail Village West 1" 1779 Sierra Trail PIS - 10 695 3,340 31% 1,604 15% 1997 PatLson Lot 2. Block 1. Gore Creek Sur) 5126 Black Gore Dr,c R 11,224 3.104 28% 2,D90 19% 2002 Gray Lot 2. Block 2. Gore Creek Sub 5109 Black Gore Drive R 11,378 3.361 30% 2,440 21% 2001 Scalise Lot 9, Block E, Vail Das Schore 1st 2567 Arosa Drive PIS 11.843 4,314 36% 2.191 19% 1999 Klesbo Lot 1. Block 2, Gore Creek Sub. 5411 Black Bear Lane R 12,020 3.231 27% 2.284 19% 1997 Cummings Lot 20. Vail Village West 2nd Filing IB35 West Gore Creek Drive Pis 12,327 4,182 34% 2.428 20% 1999 Davis Lot 14. Block 2, Gore Creek 5133 Black Bear R 12,452 3,492 28% 1.979 16% 2000 Brawn Lot 6. Block B, Vail Ridge 2642 Cortina Lane PIS 12,760 3,571 2a% 1,869 15% 2001 Knobel Lot B. Block 1, Vail Village 1sl 392 Mill Creek Circle PIS 12,876 4,069 32% 2.575 20% 1998 McDcugal Lot 15. Block 6, Vail Intermountain 2955 Basingdale Blvd_ PIS 13,113 3,696 28`Y 1,838 14% 1997 Dreyer Lnt 6, Bleck 1, Gore Crack Sub 5114: Grouse Lare R 13,199 4.381 331% ?..'i4 17% 21 :Rome. Lot 16, Bt9hom 2"' -. ;3t €i Lt=piru3 Drive ..PI:> 11.844 "4.133 -i 2?°in 2.672 1SX, Gramalegui Lot 7, Blick 1, Vail intermountain 2614 Larkspur Lane P " S 14,861' A,321 2,D'Xt 2,965 LO%, 201 Hilb Lot 35, Block 1 Ruitehr Creek 1970 Chamonix t'sn PY j,-50 4,u73 r9°, 3.017 19`70 1998 Tavoso ....Lot 18, BIook S, Vail Rid -Te. 2655 Davos. Trail - i 1.5,7.56 27','- 2,348 159m 19g9 Seaver Dam Lot 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd 383 Beavon Darn Road Piti 311 ;ca 3 29 �'n 3,0.44. 10% 2001. Dauphinais Lot i6 Lot 16, Vail Vittage.Wes; Piling 92 181 Shasta Place. •Piti 'u 1 '.37: 1796 3.214.. 20114. :1998. Erickson Lot2fi.BuffetlrCreckSundivisen ,1987CircleDrive -- PIS 16,382 "" '2"'0 2,293 1.°in 1997; Billingsley - Lot 3. Slack 7. Vait Village Filing 7 1170 Ptarmigan Road Pis 15 ,37 1 057 2891. 3,064 -19`%0 : .1999; Adam Lot B, Block 2, Vail Village lith Filing 765 West Forest Road 2 7-, 31 % 2,670 1i 1, :..1999 Wiley Lot_ 14. Block 3,:V3 Valley. First Fi,rg 1538 Spring H4 Lane R 17 208" 5,13.201__:.31%- ,, 2,82?.: _ tt0 1999: Hoverston Lot 15, Tract E. 2830 Aspen Court R 17,424 4,833 28% 3,485 20% 1997 Dauphinais Lot 24, Lions Ridge Filing #3 I &" Glacier Court P,S 17,543 4,846 28% 3,156 18% 1998 Raelli Lot 15, Block 7. Vail Village First 278 Rockledge Road PIS 17,850 4,847 27% 3,419 19% 1998 Ball Lot 8. Block 9, Vail Intermountain 2835 Snowberry Dove PIS 17,860 3,151 18% 1,929 11% 1998 Flannery Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Vl1lage 1" 186 Forest Road PIS 18.164 4,511 25% 2.361 13% 1997 A -Frame Lot 8, Block D. Vail Ridge 2657 Arosa Dnve PIS t8.165 2,086 11% 1,144 6% 1999 Laidlaw Lot 10. Matterhorn Village 1722 Geneva Drive PIS 18.185 2.794 15% 2,400 13% 1999 Robins Lot 27, Block. 7, Vail Village 1st Filing 154 Beaver Dam Road PIS 18,469 5,930 32% 2,216 121/o 1999 Northwind Developers Lot 16. Block 1 365 Mill Creek Cirde PI'S 19,364 5.038 26% 3.677 20% 1997 Van8eelan Lot 19, Block H. Vail das Sahone 2nd 2.137 Garmisch P:S 19,515 2.308 1-% 1,551 811/6 1997 Ackerman Tract C. Vail Village 761 967 Vail Valley Drive P";19,607 r : 05.3 26% 8,920 > 209; 19981 Poi Lot 28, Black 7, Vail.Villa,e 7; &1 Beaver Dam Road 11/6 19.60% 2690 3,045 1515 2001 l afire Lot 26, Vail Village We k " lK5.W. Gore -Creek Dr Pis 19,5c 161/. 1:599 B% 1997 Vieie Lot 5. Block 2. Vail VI:•lage 1 2745 Bald httn. Road R 2t 1 .. "'" 241% 2.638 1336 19971 Peters Lot 12. Block 9, B=ghom 3 4193 Spruce Way R 21,4700 3.''s '_'5% 3,360 11 1997; Logan Lot 3: Black 1, Vali Paulo / alcli 817 Pot<atoPak;io Pis 21,083. ; >> 25% 1.989 9% 2000, Halaby Lot B;VV2nd 252 West Meadow Dr R 2i, 535"J. 24% 4,306 20% i 2002, Tall Pines Subdivision Lot 2, Tall Pines Subdivi=_ion 2339 Chamonix Leine :"S 2L i36' 221/o 3,055 - 1410 1998.: ;lllingsworth - Lot B. Vail Meadows 1st - 5112 Grouse. Lane - R 27.21 a 26%. 4,265. - -19% X1999' Krediet - Lot 11 -A.. -Block 7. Vail Village 1st 22G.Forest Road P;S 22,224 7333:, 33/0.. 4,445_: -.20% ;1938, Sheffield tot 19, Block 7, Bighorn 5th 4998 Meadow Drive P�S 22,751 4,929 22% 3,185 111% 1998 Hagerman Lot 2, VVWesi 2nd 1794 S. Frontage Rd, PIS 23,217 5,205 22% 2,098 9".r0 2002 Flinn Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village 7th 245 Forest Road PIS 23.954 4,914 21% 3,556 15% 2001 Groshire Lot 4 & 5, Block 1. Gore Creek Subdivisio 5166 Black. Gore Drive R 24,067 5.354 22110 3,490 15% 1999 Hoverstein Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing 95 Forest Road PIS 24.067 5,507 23% 2,575 11% 1999 Koenig Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3ftl 0392 Beaver Dam Road PIS 25.273 5,651 22% 4,549 18% 1997 JAG Vail Lot 11. Block 5, Bighorn 51h Addison 4969 Meadow Drive PIS 25,365 4,712 19% 3.297 13% 1998 Cummings Lot 27, Vail Meadows 1st 5135 Main Gore Drive R 25,648 5.400 21% 4,380 17% 2002 Beaver Dam Lot 2, Block 3. Vail Village 3rd 363 Beaver Dam Road PIS 25,710 5,771 22% 2.872 11% 2001 Nunez Lot 8, Block 3. Vail 'Valley 1st Fiiinq 1457 Vail Valley Drive PIS 25.831 :;"M 21°:6 4.314 17°16 1998 Lagan Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch 7" 815 Potato Patch Dnve PIS 26.223 5:720 2216 3,933 15% 1997 Southwest Builders -Lot 6,Slack A.Vail Ridge 2673 Cortina Lane Pfs- 27,51; 5,348 21% 4,143 15% 1997 Donance Lots 3A83B, Block 7, Vail Village 1st 97 A&B Rockledge Rd PIS 23 4'1 5 940 21% 3,957 14;0 2001 Henkes Lot 17, Block 9, Vail Intermountain i 2824 Snowberry Drive PI: 2 a ;1-1 4,750 17% 2.567 9% 1899 Broe-Neptune 11 'Lot 28, Glen Lyon Subdivision i 1270'Westhaven Circle P'S 28,704 :,9!10 21% 3,358 12% 1999 Hoffman Lot 9, Black 2, VV13th -7565 Bald Mountain Rd R 71.275 :3,358 '20% 4,111 53% 2002: Linn Lot 14; Glen Lyon 1350 Greenhill gaunt f'.'5 .,2. =13 5,185 9'., ,524 14% 1997 Darby Vail 4 Lot 7, Biork 1 Bighorn St b 3847 Lupine Drive R 35j 19 3"6 d s. 3.960 11% 2000 Wand Development LL Lot 1, Block 4 Vail Villago ? c. Filing .381 Beaver Dam Circle. F"I.; a }, '00 3,70D 101% 5,250 13% 1999 Refiners Lot 11. 61ocrt 1 VV 1210 ;t w 327 Kai Raricta Rd k �. 45,306 ? 293 @, 2,89 �F,°A 0023. Averages 19,257 4,521 2. ;4 5% 01124!2003 N cll C.7 t1� • 1D Ip R. egiv J001: 0 j SSOJ E) N 0 C� C� Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 Cl o Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N l'? W M O It a0 N *� t11 U 11'J C' t6 CO GO CP N M R ti to ti Pt !� CC ►� OJ ti O OD r Ot! N OL1 M W It S70 In 0113 to CO � OD Cl 00 @al O to r qI l71 QJ Ol `1 N Q v O a OC> 0 O oC3 le O 0 Ca c le 0 O 0® 0 0 0 C O C> O o 0' O 0 (D '•t 0 0 0 0 0 t'6 dJ CD It7 a* aCJ C> N N W CD 06 r a0 It O Q' N r V w ti et CO N Cl 40 0 tD r IV N N M O V C6 V 0 If! V letP-1 N 0 a0 so all10 to C N r_ 0 N m q� N W Q 0 CY N S? M m v v v N w0 0 In w w w CD 0 0 w 0 w CD O r ti M1 1- 1, ti O ON N IL Q O O O -CD O Q C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 0 Cf 0 Q 4 Q Q O 0 Q 0 0 0 U-) O to C1 tq O IJ7 O Q C7 O Q C7 Q= O O Q Q O C7 O kn O to Q In O Lo ICJ CO O M 117 w O M O OI 0? O r N M 'Cf ll 1 CC O? O r N M Ni ' et W Itt IR IR M1 W 'T to 47 ICJ to ICJ to to CD co 0 CD w Co O M R 1� n I- I- t- I` ti I- t. Id ti U Et- ca 0 (D +- O C7 o Q Q O O CI 0 0 8 CD 0 0 0 Q p C7 O C) O O O O O O O pp O O <C CI O C7 O C7 C7 Q C3 Q O Cl O 11 C� C] >n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q CD Q O Q p O gp CD pQ 0 O O O O 0 Q 0 O 0 0 N O C5 0' CD O Cl O O O O C0 O h O O O O OD O 17? O r r r N m r �r r r to r R r co r O r N r CV M CH �t N to N �7 N ti N CD c 0 N O m m N M M M V co u} C*3 Co co O cn M O y J Q QOQQOQQOQQ®QQQ Cl '-" Q Q d Q Q O Q O Q QO00OOQ Q LC O O CS O d C o o ca 0 C C C R Ci 0 C O C? O C3 O C7 C3 C C O© C7 C} C CC 00 CT C r CV (') V C CD h CO C) MM C ICJ t0 I,- W0 C r N M� M 0 r- r N N N N N N N N N M m m t+7 m co7 r d � O O J J b O O C 0 0 0 0 CDP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cf 4 CJ 0 Ci 4 C0 G O O O C] CD O O to G to O to 0 ICJ t1) to to try to ICJ ILS In to IC7 LR ICJ ICJ U7 0 IC] C7 to O to 0 a In N to IL co 01 O r N C+7 to ID A 00 CD Q r N CO Cn �zr C to u5 fD A Is - N N N N C7 m m m M m et e'J' It v w? -li --e V' ICJ W W uJ t6 Lo Il; Lo Ili If? ICJ u7 U') C7 a \ \ \ \ "a, \ \ \ \'\ \ \ \ \ \ \ '4 \ \ -a- ! \ \ @ a c .,o O CDP a O o O 0 O 0 0 O Cl 0 O o O a O o O a O p. M p 0 e w o ti p tD e CD e 117 p In o M a et a V e V p M p M e M o M M N N N N N N CV N N N N N N Nr;r r r r r r r r r r r r r rIr r r r r a1 tel I 0 CD 8 " co I 0 ¢ -�- O Cy 0 C) C] Cl C. C7 Q 0 0 O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 o P C1 0 O O 0 O aJ O 0 0 C7 C7 0 0 o C3 Q Cf to O In In 0' In Cl to O to O in Q In © to c3 to to O tC act to OD O N st CD CO ti ti CO M M O 0 r r N N M; M -cr 11 In In CD 1• U) r r N' N N N N: M ri C'7 Ch vi v C4 M M C'7 et v b' 'd' v 'It it a GU Co ` (D O 0 0 0 0 40.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ca o 0 o O CD C) n 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 C7 0 0 0 0!0 0 0 6 a a C C7 0 0 O O Q 0 Ca O O O 0 O Q 0o O O O IC m 0 N v I tD o0 O N It co ao C] C*t CRW C N tt Cg R o N v t0 ICD 00 0 6 N [t] o r r N C�! N N N CrJ C' J C7 M C+? •t �? d ef' to II? 0 ICJ 4 0 0 CO CD N t. I' ti CO � 9I I co i p i • 1D Ip R. i Q C7 C? o C) C7 O o 0 0 0 Co 0 Q O 0 0 0 0 Q O O 0 n C' C7 = 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i O O Q YJ CO N CD O v OD N CD Ct It OD N CD Q It CCf N CD Q m W N P- w W w M 0 0 0 O r r N N N', C+i R7 ' r T T r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N O O O C3 0 O 0 0 0 O O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C3 OD w OD Co N IT to OD Q N It CO co O N 'Ct CCT OD O CD wP- O It 1` Ci C%CO C3 C"'T CCY at N CO CA N N7 w N ti P- C% v v v Ln CA Cfl CO CD 0 w ti P� P+ (0 co w OT Q C7 O Q O o 0 Co 0 Co 0 0 0 0 Q O O O Q 0 CC) Q CCT C7 Cn O In Co CCT O Cn O CCT O In O 4'T O In O OD CA at C7 CJ r r N N M (w) '4' It Cn Cn CD CD P M CO P� Pr 1.- CO co 00 co co I Ca CSI 00 CO 0 m 00 00 CQ 06 d CO 0 0 r Ir 0 0 cv v Qo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Qo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c C� ci acC7000csoqC oQQCaQo©o r CRI M V CST Cil 1.- W M C+N Crl CA M P- M 0 Cm v v v v v v v v v u� sfT tn Lo in L ul CCT to CD C7 Ca O 0 O n 0 0 0 Q O Q Q O C1 O 0 0 0 0 Ca to 0 CCT n U') C> LD O M O CCT 0 to C) Ifl O In CD 0 CIT cc C7 CTT C D r r C' N C7 CrT 'I "t CCT Cn CD CLT Pti P� t0 c N T CC) d r T � CCT CQ CO CCT CLT f.fl CO t.0 CCJ Cfl CLT CA t0 CLT CCT CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to Q Q O C7 0 0 0 0 0 Q O Cry 0 Q 0 0 Co O C3 Q O Q Q C3 O O O O 0 0 0 T~ co w CD O N et CC m O N It CD act O C �' CD m O st � O CC] [n 47 CA CY Qr O O O O O r r r r T N Y r r r r r r r r r r O O O 0 CD Q 0 n O O 0 O O1 O 0 co es 0 O O O O O O C1 0 CD 0 0.0 1 CM 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 N't CCa O C3 N N CCS c O N V: f.O I pp C N iD m O Cb CO 00 CO M M M OT 0� O Q Q� O O� N � 0 i tU cn CD CD O CD nl CU T CD E L Q U- E< r�A � E Y/ 0 = L Q © cn a o DC7 I u,d� �< CD CD O CD CD C] CD CD C] CD CD CD CD CD CD C) O CD C3 N CD 00 CD d' N X10, 190 �S 00 0D of 0O D.� 0© O� 40, Off' 00, 00. W • d s TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing GRFA policy for single family, duplex, and primarylsecondary type structures. This worksession is intended to describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under each alternative; and to identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each of alternatives. The PEC will be asked to vote on which alternative they would like to recommend to the Vail Town Council. On March 11 th, the Vail Town Council will review the alternatives and the PEC's recommendation. If Council feels they have adequate information and time to consider this issue, staff will ask for direction on which alternative to implement. If addtional time is needed to consider the alternatives, staff would reccomend scheduling this topic for a evening meeting on April 1st. The next step after Council decides on a preferred alternative is to begin the implementation proccess. This could include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code revisions. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)? The givens for this process include: A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and recommendations from the PEC and staff. D) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass. C) This process will only address residential development in the single-family, duplex, and primary/secondary zone districts. 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 : 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, S) Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and &) Analysis of five alternatives. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31 st in 1986, 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. The PEC 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 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 (allow interior modifications and don't count basement space in GRFA calculations, respectively). 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. Council reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority/preference) in more detail: * Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. * Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. * Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative 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 2 analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative could be implemented and issues that would need to be considered prior to implementation. 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 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 2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & and alternatives. & 31st, 1996 3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and November 11& (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26 determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996 Phase 11 Analyze how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of each alternative 4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January 199611997 5) PEC Worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997 6) PEC Meeting to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997 7) Council Worksession March 11, 1997 8) Possible Evening meeting for Council to decide on alternative April 1 st or 15th if additinal time is needed from the March 11th worksession Phase III Legislative Review of preferred alternative 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 These dates are tentative and subject to change 6 V CURRENT IMPACT OF 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 foot print of a building. Both are tools that control the size and mass of building 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 homes is the following: Max GRFA (Floor Area) = 25 x lot area between 0 sq ft and 16,000 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_ So a 35,000 square foot lot would be entitled to 3,750 sq ft of GRFA for the 1 st 15,000 feet + 1 500 sq ft. of GRFA for the lot area between 15,000 and 30,000 + 250 sq ft for the last 5000 feet of lot area for a total of 5,500 square feet of GRFA. Credits: A dwelling unit can also receive 425 sq ft of additional square feet and 600 square feet for a garage and potentially 500 sq ft for a Type II EHU. 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 7000 square feet_ D, Lot Areas in Vail Since lot area directly affects GRFA and site coverage, staff reviewed lot sizes across Vail. Staff reviewed 611 lots in sudivisions across Town of Vail. Lot sizes range significantly in size from several thousand 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 summarizes the frequency of lot sizes in the Town of Vail TABLE 1 4 8 J E LOT SIZES 1N THE TOWN OF VAIL Lot Area (square feet) Percent Total Number in Range 0-5000 2.93% 18 5000-10,000 18.73% 115 10,000-15,000 25.24% 155 15,000-20,000 18.40% 113 20,000-25,000 12.54% 77 25, 000-30, 000 191% 24 30,000-35,000 6.35% 39 35,000-40,000 3.26% 20 40,000+ 8.14% 50 Total 100% 611 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 displays the affect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark heavy line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA" lines reflects the range of how big a home could be if site coverage was the only limiting factor. The "No GRFA° lines assume that a developer will use 100% of the site coverage for the 1 st floor of a home. The No GRFA (low) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and massing above the 1st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). The No GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and 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 a 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 ePiminated, a larger lot could accommodate a significantly larger home. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have between a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot structure without GRFA. With GRFA a primarylsecondary type building could only be as large as 7,800 square feet in size on the same sized lot with credits. Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in the Town of Vail. Figure 1 Floor Area Comparision 25,640 15,044 No GRFA(High) NO GRFA y (Lo ( ) - 0 14.400 LL I 1 ` GRFA+Credits 5 044 I I oil .. : i i l i ;. I O 4 O O O O O O pO O O C] C] O o O 4 O O C} O O O O O O O C] O O 0 O O O O 4 C] 0 O O O O 4 CDL O O O O O O O O C] O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O N b^ :D Cp O M 4 P-- 0 M 41'1 f` O N V ID m O N V to W O r N IN N N N M n M M '4t 7 Q V @ 4A 10 h M !n 4D Lot Area (sq n-) V. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative 1 - Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: G RFA + credits Na GRFA (L.* — — NoGRFA (HIG) This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would allow existing home 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 home owners to modify the interior of their home and utilize crawl space or vaulted areas. The major considerations with alternative 1 are: 1) If alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could be anticipated to build a home under GRFA , and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words people would 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 this policy would be adopted by the Town. 2) Staff recommends that a home would need to have no remaining GRFA allowance before doing interior modifications. In other words if a property had 500 remaining b square feet of GRFA they would want 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) If alternative 1 were considered a preferred alternative, staff would recommend eliminating the 253 credit unless it was used for an EHU. 4) Equity is an issue with this alternative only applying to homes built before a certain date. Property owners of homes built in the future would certainly like to take advantage of the same opportunity to use vaulted and crawl spaces for livable area. B. Alternative 2- Don't 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 lower floor is below grade. 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. 4) Alternative 1 would enable a property owner to turn a crawl space into a livable area. C. Alternative 3 -Eliminate GRFA This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to control 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 floor area in the home. GRFA does not prevent a property owner from building a block" like structure. Good Architecture and design guidelines are better tools 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: Figure 2 7 2 Reduced Site Coverage 12,000 No GRFA (High) y 10,000 1 —G-RrA+Credits i 8,000 N o G R FA (Low) GRFA+C red its 6,000 r _ _ - - ' NO GRFA (Low) ® o f / - — NO GRFA (High) 4,D00 / r - - 'I 2,000 0 C7 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 C C3 C O C 0 0 0 Ci o 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 a 0 0 C C 0 0 d O o 0 co f2 0 I] N CA G1 f] h ['J co (Y c7 C] V' V' U] Lo u7 Lot Area i 1) Site coverage would have to be modified for lots over 19,000 square feet to prevent significantly larger homes. Figure 2 demonstrate 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 8 11 2) Modifying the site coverage as shown above is possible but there is a greater range for the possible size of home by relying on site coverage and height to control building mass. This can be further controlled by 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 hieght restriction to ensure off sets in the roof line (i.e. like the 60140 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 2 members of the board have design backgrounds. 6) Certain subdivisions such as Spraddel Creek have recorded maximum GRFA limits on the plat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that home did not exceed those limits or significantly reduce development rights. 7) Eliminating GRFA would also eliminate the current floor area incentive for creating an EHU. This incentive could potentially be created using site coverage (credit) or some 9 other incentive. Is 8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illeagal converstions/remodels that occur without a bulling permit. D. No Action Taking no action on this project is also an alternative. It does not address any of the issues or concerns that have been raised in this process. It would maintain the exiting system of controlling the mass of homes using GRFA, site coverage, height, and design review. L 10 E. Summary of Alternatives Table 2 Summary of Alternatives Alternative Problem 1 Problem 2 Problem 2 Ground rule; Ground Key Issues Effectiveness Intrusivenes. Simplicity/ Don't increase size rule: in controlling sof TOV Staff & Don't mass regulating Applicant hinder interior Time I design space creativity Alternative GRFA does This Would be Could increase size Staff A) Equity: 1- not control alternative very unless it is applied recommen People will still Keep design but it would provide complicated only to homes built ds new want to build GRFA does control greater if applied to prior a certain date design in vaulted Allow mass of flexibility to new homes. and could apply only guidelines areas and interior homes on use space to home that have that will crawl spaces changes to large lots. inside a maxed out GRFA. provide in the future. exceed Could see home. better GRFA limit increase in criteria for B)Should this size if this alt. the DRB be applied to is applied to but does new homes? new homes not hinder design. Alternative Will increase Somewhat Would Would increase Same as Alt 1 can 2- Don't mass of addresses increase building size by above, basically count building above this issue by complexity pushing GRFA accomplish basement grade. not regulating since base above grade. alt. 2 space basement ment area space would have to be calculated Alternative Site Coverage Alt 3 Staff may Could increase Same as This 3 -No and Design addresses have to building size above alternatives GRFA Guidelines, this issue. review depending on how effectiveness and height TOV would design much site coverage depends controls could only regulate criteria for is modified. It is changing site more building DRB. possible to control coverage, effectively permit issue mass with site design control exterior inside a coverage and design guidelines and appearance. home. controls the DRB. Vail is 90% built out -is it too late to change. No Action GRFA does Would not No change to No change Same as Most people not control address this complexity or above like the way design but it problem staff time homes look in does control mass of homes on large lots. Vail 11 VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION L Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that involves looking at the original problems statements, 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 consistancy in the decision making of the DRB. In general, people felt that something should be done to allow people to make reasonable modification to the interior of their home 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 7 and 8 of Tom Brauns attached paper would help improve consistency and equity within the decision making process for the Design Review Board. Staff strongly recommends that these type of standards 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 int this project, staff feels that alternative 3, eliminate GRFA, has the greatest value with several caveats. A) First 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 significantly modified to ensure that homes would not significantly increase in size. B) Improved design guidelines (which might include new height restrictions) will need to be created and adopted to also ensure building mass does not significantly change. Staff would review projects based on these criteria for the benefit of the DRB. C) DRB should be comprised of at least 2 design professionals (i.e, architect, landscape architect). D) Parking will have to be further examined along with how to continue 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 that would be designed knowing that the space could be modified once a certificate of occupancy is issued. If alternative 1 were chosen as the preferred alternative, then staff would 12 it recommend it only apply to existing homes built before a the date this policy would go into affect. The major concern staff has with alternative 1 is that there is the issue of equity with home that would be built in the future and want to fill in vaulted or crawl space after recieving a certificate of occupancy, 13 0 Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Vail Local Housing Authority Date: January 27, 2003 Subject: Employee Housing Units (EHUs in the Town of Vail) The Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) has been made aware that the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) is considering a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to eliminate Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) calculations in the Town of Vail. It is the thought of the VLHA that the current regulations do not create incentives to construct and properly utilize EHUs today. The "bonus" given for the EHU does not benefit the primary residence and only accommodates the EHU, with some penalties (i.e., parking) for building an EHU. Further, the cost of constructing a new EHU unit today adds to the disincentive to build one with a home. The EHUs that function as intended appear to be units where the primary residence also technically functions as an EHU. With increasing construction costs, the "value" of these EHUs may no longer make them a financially viable option to build. Thus, the current bonuses awarded do not seem effective. The effect of GRFA on the success of dispersed EHUs is probably very limited. There are numerous other factors that need to be addressed to increase the effectiveness of EHUs throughout the Town of Vail (Town). To that end the VLHA has begun to discuss other options to incentivize the building and maintaining of EHUs through out the flown. A joint discussion in the future about inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage may be a more appropriate way to require and incentivize the creation of EHUs in the Town of Vail. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Allison Ochs I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail is requesting a text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the minimum size requirements for loading berths. The Department of Community Development is recommending approval of the text amendment in accordance with the findings in Section VII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 41 The Town of Vail is requesting an amendment to the minimum loading berth size in the Town of Vail. The current code allows for loading berths to be a minimum of 12 fit. wide by 25 ft, long by 14 ft. high. However, recent studies have indicated that this size is no longer appropriate, given the size and number of trucks currently used for delivery. As a result, the Town of Vail is proposing an amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to require larger loading berths. The amendment is proposed as follows: i• I• a •. i • i •. 1 i. r • i B. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet (12) wide, thirty five feet (35) long, and if enclosed and/or covered, fourteen feet (14) high. Eating and drinking establishments shall be required to provide at least one loading berth a minimum of twelve feet (12) by fifty feet (50) by fourteen feet (14). Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the lot lines. At the discretion of the Town Engineer and/or Planning and Environmental Commission. larger loading berths may be required subject to one or all of the following findings: 1. Existing and proposed land uses on the site require larger delivery vehicles than can be accommodated in a twelve feet (12) by thirty-five feet (35) by fourteen feet (14) loading berth, 2 Dimensional insufficiencies of loading berths would have a negative 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. 3. Such other factors that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems appropriate in determining the size of loading berths. III. BACKGROUND Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, prescribes the following size requirements for all required loading berths: B. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet (12 ) wide, twenty five feet (25) long, and if enclosed and/or covered, fourteen feet (14) high. Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the lot lines. Staff has provided minimum standards for loading berths as prescribed by other communities. The information provides the following (dimensions given are "length by width by height"). DeKalb, IL — minimum size berth of 10 ft. by 65 ft. by 14 ft. Indians River County, FL—minimum size berth of 14 ft. by 30 ft. with minimum area of 250 sq. ft. maneuvering area contiguous to the berth. West Palm Beach, FL minimum size berth of 10 ft. by 25 ft. (least intensive use) and 10 ft. by 50 ft. (larger, more intensive uses). Centralia, IL — minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 50 ft. by 14 ft. Hillsborough County, FL — minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 30 ft by 16 ft (local deliveries up to 213 of total berths required) and minimum of 12 ft. by 60 ft. by 16 ft. (semi -trailers). Fairfax, VA — minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 25 ft., but based on approval by the Director of Public Works according to use. Salinas, CA — minimum size berth of 10 ft. by 20 ft. by 10 ft. (least intensive use classification), 12 ft. by 35 ft. by 16 ft. (moderately intensive use), 12 ft. by 50 ft. by 16 ft. (most intensive use). Avon, CO — minimum size berth of 12 ft. by 35 ft. by 15 ft. Eagle County, CO—minimum size berth of 10 ft. by 35 ft. by 14 ft., with a provision for requiring larger berths at Board's discretion. Boulder, CO — minimum size berth of 500 sq. ft. with no single dimension smaller than 10 ft. As is presented above, many communities have varying size requirements for loading berth spaces. The Town of Vail's current requirement of 12 ft. by 25 ft. by 14 ft. is generally less than is required by other communities. The Department of Public Works has done numerous counts and informal surveys throughout the past few years with regard to delivery trucks. These have been attached (Attachments A through E) for reference. As indicated by 2 these surveys, truck sizes have varied from small 15 ft. vans to large 53 ft. beer delivery trucks. Generally, the larger trucks have been making deliveries to eating and drinking establishments_ To meet the need for larger loading berths, the Town of Vail has been requiring larger loading berths in the Public Accommodation and Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone districts, using the provision for mitigation of development impacts as the impetus for such requirements. As the trend towards the use of larger delivery trucks continues, the Town of Vail staff believes that it is necessary to codify this requirement for all zone districts. Codifying the loading and delivery requirements will result in establishing clearer expectations for applicants, and lessen the need for negotiating the standards with developers. 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 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. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a text amendment but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/approval with conditions/denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: C7 3 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. 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 ofpromoting 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. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 4 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. B. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. • Chapter 12-10: Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, provides the following with regard to loading and delivery: 12-10- 1: PURPOSE: In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on -street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off-street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. 12-10-9: LOADING STANDARDS: Standards for off-street loading shall be as follows: A. Location: All off-street loading berths shall be located on the same lot as the use served, but not in the required front setback. Off-street loading berths shall be provided in addition to required off-street parking and shall not be located within accessways. S. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet (12) wide, twenty five feet (25) long, and if enclosed and/or covered, fourteen feet (14) high. Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the lot lines. C. Access: Accessways not less than ten feet (10') or more than twenty feet (20) in width shall connect all loading berths to a street or alley. Such accessways may coincide with accessways to parking facilities. 5 Vail Transportation Master Plan In July of 2002, Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc., completed the "Vail Transportation Master Plan Update," which provided an update to the 19901 Transportation Master Plan. Specifically, the update addressed the following: • Vail Village Deliveries • Town Bus System • Trail System Interface • Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Intersection Level of Service Analysis • Implementation Process • Plan Monitoring and Updating. The update provided the following long-term recommendation with regards to loading and delivery: 7. Change current zoning code concerning required delivery space. The current zoning code requires delivery spaces to be 10 ft. by 25 ft., which is not adequate. Bars, restaurants, and hotels which require delivery of food and beverages should have one to two or more spaces, 12 ft. wide and 35 ft. to 50 ft. long. This would accommodate most delivery vehicles. The code should allow for required loading bays to be located in a nearby dispersed delivery tunnel. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 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: 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: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose ofpromoting 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: t. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 0 I 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10, To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff believes that the proposed text amendment furthers these general and specific purposes of the Town of Vail 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; and Loading and delivery has been identified as a major concern and issue in the Town of Vail. The Transportation Master Plan and recent updates to the plan indicate that it is necessary to amend the minimum loading berth size to accommodate the mix of delivery vehicles in the Town of Vail. Staff believes that this amendment 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; and As indicated in the attached delivery vehicle counts, the size of delivery trucks in the Town of Vail is generally exceeding the required loading berth capabilities. This leads to increased enforcement efforts, the need for greater coordination, traffic congestion, and inconvenience for guests and residents of the Town. Staff believes that the existing loading berth size is no longer appropriate or applicable and that this proposed text amendment will improve the loading and delivery capabilities of 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 7 development objectives. 0 The Town of Vail has already been requiring larger loading berths as part of the mitigation of development impacts in the Public Accommodation and Lionshead /Mixed Use 1 zone districts. In addition, larger loading berths have been required in many special development districts. However, staff believes that to provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations, the size of loading berths should be increased in all zone districts. 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 followingfindings 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 40 quality. VII. 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 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VI 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 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. 0 0 VIII. ATTACHMENTS • • A. Count of Vehicles at P3&J B. Count at Main Lodge and Checkpoint Charlie C. Vail Village Vehicle Mix D. Town of Vail Delivery Vehicle Survey and Results E. Delivery Vehicle County — Vail Village and Lionshead F. Photos of Delivery Vehicles G. Design Controls and Criteria �9 Vehicles Entering at P3&J Vehicle Type Budweiser Minivan Valley Honey Wagon garbage Christy Sports Miller Lite Budweiser Meadow Gold UPS Summit Laundry Clive Oil (Calabria) ,Jim's Formal Wear Spartan Dana White Truck Green Van American Linen Yellow Truck Michael Shea's Outback Builders White Pick -Up Christy Sports Qwest Breeze Ski Rental Van Red Bull Energy Drink White Truck Summit Commercial Laundry USPS Time In Time Out Exit Location 8:17 8:32 Gore 8:24 8:24 Gore 9:25 9:31 Gore 9:32 11:22 Gore 9:32 11.32 Gore 9:40 9:54 Gore 9:42 9:54 Gore 9:57 10:05 Gore 10:05 10:37 Gore 10:07 10:07 Gore 10:27 10:40 P3&J 10:43 11:46 Gore 10:52 11:02 Gore 11:51 12:23 Gore 11:58 1:22 Gore 12:00 12:02 Gore 1:23 1:58 Gore 2:25 3:03 Gore 2:49 2:56 Gore 3:12 3:31 Gore 3:17 3:42 Gore 3:31 3:42 Gore 3:53 3:53 Gore 4:51 4:56 Gore 10:54 12:38 Gore indicates arrival/departure during peak period Count Summary Statistics Average Truck Length Overall 25 Average Truck Length During Peak 30 Number of 18 ft Trucks 12 Number of 30 ft Trucks 11 Number of 35 ft Trucks 1 Number of 40 ft Trucks 1 i Length (ft) 35 30 30 30 30 30 18 30 18 40 30 18 18 30 30 18 18 30 18 18 18 30 18 18 Attachment: A • U 0 is 0 Attachment: Q Vehicle Type Time In. Vehicles Entering Main Lodge and Checkpoint Charlie Enter Location Time Out Exit Location Service Lodge? Length (feet) Shamrock Foods 6:44 Checkpoint Charlie 8:30 Gore no 40 White Van 7:08 Lodge (Main) 7:15 Lodge (Main) main entrance 18 Italco Foods 7:25 Checkpoint Charlie 8:20 Gore no 30 BFI Garbage 7:32 Checkpoint Charlie 9:07 Gore no 25 Vail Haney Wagon 7:40 Checkpoint Charlie 6:16 Gore no 25 Sinton's Dairy 8:07 Checkpoint Charlie 8:26 Gore no 30 Coors Truck 8:09 Lodge (Main) 9:35 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Coors Truck 9:35 Checkpoint Charlie 10:38 Gore no 30 Budweiser Van 8:10 Checkpoint Charlie 9:32 Gore no 18 Wine Truck 8:15 Lodge (Main) 6:35 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Wine Truck 8:35 Checkpoint Charlie 9:12 Gore no 30 BF] Garbage 8:20 Checkpoint Charlie 8:47 Hansen no 25 White Delivery Trick 8:20 Checkpoint Charlie 8:35 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Seattle Fish Co. 8:43 Lodge (Main) 8:58 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Seattle Fish Co. 8:58 Checkpoint Charlie 9:15 Gore no 30 Meadow Gold 8:45 Lodge (Main) 9:10 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Meadow Gold 9:10 Checkpoint Charlie 9:35 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Sno-White LinenlUniform 8:46 Checkpoint Charlie 9:30 Gore Creek Frontage stopped along Gore in front of lodge 18 Sno-White Linen/Uniform 9:30 Gore Creek Frontage 9:57 Gore no la Nationai Velvet Dry Cleaners 8:47 Lodge (Main) 8:53 Lodge (Main) main entrance 18 Nationai Velvet Dry Cleaners 8:53 Checkpoint Charlie 9:00 Gore no 18 Miller Lite 8:47 Checkpoint. Charlie 9:07 Gore Creek Frontage stopped along Gore in frond of iodge 30 Miller Lite 9:07 Gare Creek Frontage 9:31 Gore no 30 Italco Foods 9:14 Lodge (Main) 9:24 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Blank White Van 9:29 Checkpoint Charlie 9:58 Gore no 30 Three Leaf Clover Truck 9:42 Lodge (Main) 9:55 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Gorsuch LTD While Truck 9:45 Checkpoint Charlie 11:11 Gore no 30 Three Leaf Clover Tack 9:55 Checkpoint Charlie 9:57 Gore no 30 American Linen 9:55 Lodge (Main) 11:27 Gore main entrance 1 a Western Slope Laundry 9:57 Checkpoint Charlie 10:07 Lodge (Main) stopped along Gore in front of lodge 18 Blank White Truck (1&W22) 10:00 Checkpoint Charlie 10:19 Gore no 30 Northeast While Truck 10:09 Lodge (Main) 11:05 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Sinton's Dairy 10:10 Checkpoint Charlie 10:47 Gore stepped along Gore in front of lodge 30 UPS 10:50 Checkpoint Charlie 241 Gore no 30 Slifer Designs 10:55 Checkpoint Charlie 11:07 Gore no 18 GMC Savanna White Van 10:57 Checkpoint Charlie 11:10 Gore stopped along Gore in front of lodge 18 White Van 11:04 Checkpoint Charlie 11:20 Willow Bridge Road no 18 UPS 11:11 Checkpoint Charlie 11:20 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Sinton's Dairy 11:14 Checkpoint Charlie 11:30 Willow Bridge Road no 30 Vail Haney Wagon 11:20 Checkpoint Charlie 11:31 Gore no 25 White Tack (Penske) 11:29 Checkpoint Charlie 12:27 Gore no 30 Willow River Natural Cheese 11:47 Checkpoint Charlie 12:00 Willow Bridge Road no 30 RAC Transport 12:10 Lodge (Main) 12:15 Lodge (Main) main entrance 30 Beer Tack 12:17 Lodge (Main) 12:22 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Upholesiry 12:22 Checkpoint Charlie 12:32 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Retriever Air Freight 12:35 Checkpoint Charlie 12:44 Willow Bridge Road no 30 American Linen 12:54 Checkpoint Charlie 1:15 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Troy Dry Cleaners 1:19 Checkpoint Charlie 1:21 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Florist 2:05 Checkpoint Charlie 2:22 Checkpoint no 18 UPS 2:12 Checkpoint Charlie 2:40 Willow Bridge Road no 30 UPS 2:18 Lodge (Main) 2:34 Willow Bridge Road main entrance 30 Floral Designs 2:42 Checkpoint Charlie 2:44 Checkpoint no 1 B Plain White Pick -Up 3:03 Checkpoint Charlie 3:07 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Breeze Ski Rental Van 3:13 Checkpoint Charlie 3:20 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Red Buil Energy prink 3:45 Checkpoint Charlie 4:00 Willow Bridge Road no 18 Delivery Tack 4:25 Checkpoint Charlie 4:35 Checkpoint no 30 Delivery Van 4:25 Checkpoint Charlie 4:30 Checkpoint no 18 UPS 5:00 a Main 5:09 Gore main entrance 30 inuicares a avaepwWe during peek pwKw Count Summary Statistics Average Tack Length Overall 30 Average Truck Length During Peak 30 Number of 18 R Tacks 20 Number of 25 R Tacks 4 Number of 30 R Tacks 33 Number of 35 R Tacks 4 Number of 40 R Tacks 1 Figure 12 - Vail Village Vehicle Mix Vall Mfloge Pedestdan Area Vehicle MIx Attachment: C 30% 0 sr 24% Wawa Deliveries to Vail Village vary by season and day of the week 'as well as by type of vehicles.. Table 3, presents the Vail Village:Oeifivery activity by day of the week. Table 3 - Daily Delivery Activity -5 Total trips; Into the �'R'ANZOM 0121-O"'ONNAM Day of the week-` ;.=, All Vehicles. Delive Twedf8ift" 3% Sunday 'F.' - ; ! " -- ", - - 599 29 2% Monda:'-815 2% y Val 4% 12% TuesdaV .11:10% W*1 � 2% Wednesday 17% 306 21% 12% -1176 17% 288 I TO/O Fridaj A z 7% d. 308 2'2% Saturday Attachment: C 30% 0 sr 24% Wawa Deliveries to Vail Village vary by season and day of the week 'as well as by type of vehicles.. Table 3, presents the Vail Village:Oeifivery activity by day of the week. Table 3 - Daily Delivery Activity -5 Total trips; Into the Day of the week-` ;.=, All Vehicles. Delive trucks Sunday 'F.' - ; ! " -- ", - - 599 29 2% Monda:'-815 2% y 176 12% TuesdaV .11:10% 178 120% Wednesday 17% 306 21% Thursday -1176 17% 288 20% Fridaj 1279 19% 308 2'2% Saturday 223 18% 151 110/40 T16tA1 6858 100%, 1430 10 aAL 20610 40 To --t6'theVillage tend to be heaviest during Friday and Saturday, and lightest on -'�s Sunday. However,delivery trips are light on Saturday and heaviest during Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. These numbers indicate that limiting deliveries on Saturday and/or Sunday might be possible. Each trip is an in or out event at an entry of exit point in the Village. 21 • kAttachment: D 02/2712002 TOW Town of Vail - Vail Village Delivery Vehicle Survey Please Complete and Return to the Town of Vail Public Works Department at 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 or Fax 970479-2166 -• Attention Leonard Sandoval Date - Driver Name - Company Name - Size of Vehicle — (Circle one) Tractor -Trailer 18 -wheeler Tractor Trailer 14 wheeler Tractor Trailer 10 wheeler Tandem Truck Single Axle Dual wheel Truck Van Other: Overall Length Enter The Village Location — (Circle one) Check Point Charlie Hanson Ranch Rd. Cross Roads Area Gore Creek Drive From East End ( Mill Creek Chute) Approx_ Time Enter/Arrive in Village - Approx. Time ExistlComplete Delivery in Village - How many times per week do you make a deliveryPer week winter. Per week summer Staging areas — (Number in order of route from start to finish) If you perfer, use map on backside of page to show route and staging areas. Loading Zone on Gore Creek Drive in Front of Lodge of Vail. Willow Bridge Rd North of Check Point Charlie Children's Fountain Area Intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street Area Lower Bridge Street Bridge Street Hanson Ranch Rd. East of Silbert Circle (Top of Bridge Street) Hanson Ranch Rd. in front of The Christina Lodge Loading Zone Area near the Mill Creek Court Building Crossroads Area Comments - The Town of Vail is looking at ways to improve vehicle/pedestrians access within the Village core areas, Thank you, If you have any question, please call Leonard Sandoval at 970479-2198 Cn 0 0 w 0 a o a Oa G1 Q a CCD CD CCD 0. CD X 3 3 3 3 CD � X, x U? 0 0 a 0 0 0 CDD _ CD n n C7 C7 C) 0 — n j 0 En n CD n � m co co co M. � �_ M CD CD Cl) N CD 1 0 m m 3 O v V �l 11 O n O 0 0 0 0 0 O , o a CD v CD CD N' CD oa o0 0o tm r 0 Ln C7 a Ss3 C) co -4 (n w 0) C) D -- 3 C CD O O 0 N W t N 7 0 7=4 Q 3 �C o cn oo cn co 0 do Cn 0 0 0 0 a a) a a Oa G1 Q a CCD CD CCD 0. CD X 3 3 3 3 CD � X, x m CD 0 0 a 0 0 0 _ 5' S' n n C7 C7 C) 0 C) n 0 0 En n CD n � m co co co 0 0 0 0 0 CD a o CCD CD CCD CCD CD n n n 0 n 77 X- � X, x 0 0 a 0 0 0 _ 5' S' 3' 5' =r0 y C) 0 C) n 0 0 En n CD n asv Ca a1 w M. � �_ M CD CD CD N CD 1 0 w m 3 O v V �l 11 O Q (1)' 0 0 0 0 0 <71 m a CD v CD CD N' CD oa o0 0o tm 0 Ln C7 a O C) co -4 (n w 0) C) D -- 3 CD O O 0 N W t N N 0 7=4 - N N N W --1 D cn 6 o 0 co O CO rn x w CD (D coo w opo CD CDD N 3 3 3 G C C ;r � 77 A A � v 3 0 0 X, -1 O 0 t�. N 0o n CD a o 3 CD CD C7' CD C4�-Tt 0 _ =r m o =r0 y (D - CD 0 En n CD n 0 Ca �- ;r 77 x m 77 0 a ao CD 0 0 0 w m 3 x D. n ; �— O Q (1)' j. S N v <71 m a CD v CD CD N' CD m @ CD : CD x A C) co -4 (n w 0) C) D -- 3 CD O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 7=4 3 o cn oo cn co 0 do 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 a a P. C37 J V -4 d7 O 0 p O 't7 CA z "+ w Cr CD 5' co is 40 n CD a o CD CD C7' CD C4�-Tt 0 _ =r 5' (D (D D fL] S 2 C7 m Lll 3 m CD 3 CD 0 x 0 v D. n ; (a CD a O Q (1)' j. m a a CD a rn x d C) D -- 3 CD ZC 7=4 3 is 40 10 f > f / . / ƒ 7 / . c CD/ 2 ƒ ƒ \ ] ƒ � CO CD / 0 g Q e ° 0 \ / / / ¢ g a@ a« CL (n c� O m O m 2 \2 \/ �2 g2 K2 k2 « -CD CO « e $ e E £ / ƒ \ / 7 7 7 Z -� -CD ££ £C £E £a % \ % \ \ k � E U ? / W ? ? ? ? ? ? / / /° \ / / / / x n 0 2 = ƒ ƒ o o � k §akaaa Q n n � 2/ Q n n n Q 7 / ] m 7 / ƒ C . U ¢ m £ £ 7 E , m a S E b R / 0 E E 0) 2 \ 2 2 2 k k \/ k k k S a 2 2 2 K 2 2 7 Q w a CA , a # • -4 4 10 <1-6 V -S4---4 W k4e,r b Z LIVERY VEHICLE COUNT - VAIL VILLAGE / LIONSHEAD 1212012000 "j-I110i.1111�L 8:15 - 8.45 AM Attachment: E VEHICLES DESCRIPTION LENGTH TYPE TOTAL LENGTH VAIL HONEYWAGON 34' Tandem WESTERN 24' 6" Single Axle 1 Tan 17'8' Van SYSCO 2906-1 Tandem ALLIANT 33' 3" Tandem BUDWEISER 191,362", 219" Tractor Trailer I Single Axle VAN! BAKERY 19' Van NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING CO. 262" Single Axle 1 Ton MEADOW MTN PLUMBING 23' Single Axle 1 Ton LIGNSHEAD 8:35 - 8:45 AM Single Axle NONE IN MALL AREA. 1212112000 VAIL VILLAGE 10:45 - 11:00 AM WESTERN 39'6", 15'6" Tractor Trailer -10 Wheeler 19' 5" Van AMERICAN LINEN 263" Van AMERICAN LINEN 23' Van AMERICAN LINEN 15' Van SITON'S 29'6" Single Axle BUDWEISER 53' Tractor Trailer - 10 Wheeler SYSCO 29-711 Dual Axle Tandem BUDGET 23'6" Single Axle RAC TRANSPORT 21' 3". 22'3" Tractor Trailer -14 Wheeler PENSKE/ UPS 34' 5" Single Axle RYDER 33-61' Single Axle RYDER 33'6" Single Axle ALLIANT 33-2" Dual Axle Tandem GORSUCH 20' 10" Single Axle US POSTAL 163" Van RENTX 30' Single Axle 56' 11 " 55' 43' 6° LJ • C7 Attachment: F V1, i T t � All 3 a r t �'. 1"0" 9� t i. i11 r i. i11 IBM -I- CLAIWA d Pole »�2��\/�/ IBM -I- CLAIWA jq S i S � r � •,� r�,,Sxyy. r c 1 t F Attachment: G w C u`0 w'✓ ic7 cd C 7 U C.. ae 1. aCz o C: Iro Cd 10, Qw -- U !� Cd �aU+ •y L..i ° .CY-� LJ S.. C1 i.� V r i 1[�7^°'• it cd y �✓ .0 'C d �' OUi cn ° '.'." ate+ UCo x > C C N O + C W raM 4' i✓r `U > oj C'' 'Wrn El C Q N F cd CA > 4l Cw C .N vt 41 U 'C3 od baD} .[,Z q.1 y i -i a3 ,� w O F a �a C3 `a•� C'� a© ' yr w v _G w bn y4 w Cs °CosVd h R asi 6° += ao o y a ar :u v v C as > w q N C *{ :: cU GD su iq � � N .� � •6T � O °N � � •Q? � � O � .. w F up e► 'c� u do .� F v u u sa Cs. to (a 'SUOISUaullp e1314aA u61sap ' L -II algL*l I -pun gu!Molloj ogl jo olxe aA!laajja peal aqt o) lu!od gol!q oql moil oatims!p aqt s! .l° •lntod ilogg agt ut alxe an!laajja real aql utojj aauers!p mp sl S -saseglaagm alalgan an!taaj ja are tQM "EIM 'zgM '°13M -patew!lsa s! ]!Ids 'E•6 uo!s—!p pau!q-oJ = p -patetupso s! illds 'g "suaw!p pau!qumoD = a -patewnsa s! 1!lds 't,,6 tigsomrp poulgwgD = q -pa}euntsa s! ulds'gZ uo!sow!p pau!gmZ) = e (loV aauetslssy uopuvodsuetl• aaejrnS) VVdS 2966 u! paraglejpue)S se ialterl ,f S yl!m alalgan uStsaQ = „� (iz)V aauels!ssv uo!leuodsauU oasjxnS) +dNLs 2861 ul paidope se ralterl ,gb yllM alalgan uS!saQ = (IjI uvtsuatulu • � ee�gg �` T' .. � m ' " ° ' •' • . r. � � ;, . • - :., �- '�^:af,M;? .' W .s •� ,°-, ,-r .0 Q% �.. w } 'u ".) ^ as .r•, ii rl 15 W y C u•; JCs �" .'C.., •� e,.-, '� p c�a •� C N E �' iq .A r. w "O y 4. •�. ° .ro E`er two a, 3 •.- `J `' o `S ` .� L ar G >, ."�. 7 cd r 5-. cd �" --' °> c y a n n Y a? on y' r b w c v oo _ 3 °w' o > w i O N C> C 0» cd t: L, W 0 w U sem. .C. m >, �' !., E' w cFp 'a U �• ° ,"' w Gil °' w °i v txp aG y +'~+ a -ao o eo G� a� E v y o o. c l C c c a. y ' er, -- > v U ro oo w. c w E m QO CLI L,n 'r ff5 W' ✓moi .. } N " �C "» y 1 �4 Q4 U o +� C 's+ } Ln cd d cu w 4t 4. n Sa C tCv :q . C °� cn O ��. as d� p «�". cd .Tj 'C1 Q pqj M a , .M M cC rn v fl O ar ^d G '� _C O O In �' Ca '•' "� V A. Ci` �.' -C 0 r. w F 'C y .1L '°_' ' C �,� C C O c� c. .b1J s. "' U v y G ,C) d. c • '- °' o ID ;_ cl b °D 'b = ca a) a pq ao W y r� 44- GJ 4 v ea e) � Qa cct U U GO : a)t. . ° ma v _ � ,,,, n° �'' C U Cl . a a) w •r -� .r,,:.' .~�-^ ^' .r.' ,� a-. G ri ... c,1 F U id v F. td© rn• o w Gq w O C1. -� sC, " " GCf oD = Jo _G 1~ 5' 'D '" 0 V -S cam •' E Gti Y nr y A Ca C �s > o w > El GCa on CZ � ars w W3> E 1 a v ,°n n' �; b 0 o 0 0 '.� .� '� �° r E w ed C w cd .e w° vc°'na ® C i•1 O°cr: . Gan r. ya' , " �air a° a .�'•F°u�J">i, cr Si *a�'": a�r J.*`�°c�' •yC U o �s C -6 U U i' y W � ,Vw cl opa) "D E ,©o a ga �s 72 U en U Cai w.2 �o o C7 a `� .0 °' °) °' aai S° a `� 6 t o" cti u > 9 1Z Oz 8 b £S 8 S/Hw .101194 1909 pug aurol{rolayq S SI 11 8 £ Zla 8 gld n[!urI lgoq Pug no S 81 11 01 £ 64 8 I)d iallml xadtuga pug rgo OZ 9 b O£ 8 HN aurng roloyq al�tgaA UOIlear32S raT!gik![uag bt• n9 2 Ob ZZ Z Z 811 9•8 S'EI VT I-gM algnolq ajtd-rkL L,IZ L,IZ p9 p£'£ L'OZ 5'£I E•£ S'Z Z01 9•8 S'£I 96-19M jPT!g-n!—saldTa.L Lb -Sb OZ E £ bL 9'8 5'£T **L9-flM JaT!g3ltncaS OTHjualul zV-06 OZ E E 69 9'8 S'£T *Z9 -UM Ja[le.3lluiaS21gls-Ialul ialierl-!ln;—ralteu 6.OZ qt -5 n4 OZ L'6 E Z 99 5'8 S'£I 09-fIM luras „mollvg 219noQ„ 0£ OZ Z £ SS S'S S'£I 05 -OM ia1!er1turas a8.teq LZ £1 9 ti 05 9•8 S'£I Ot-gM rallwpWas aletpaaualul s3lonrl uolleutgmD IN ab 81 S'6 5'8 09 5'8 5,O1 SMI -V snq p2juInallrV SZ 8 L Ob 9'8 5'£1 Mia snq Ilun olitttS OZ 9 4 OE 5'8 S'£T fis 3[aml Ilun al3uiS I1 5 E Gl L 9Z'4 d 2easa8uassed "UM £' g11i .L S lum `llAk HVH8 luoa j gl:tua•I glp!M lggla]g InquiAS adAl, aW!gaA uNtsa(I 2uugsaep 1 UJOA0 (IjI uvtsuatulu • � ee�gg �` T' .. � m ' " ° ' •' • . r. � � ;, . • - :., �- '�^:af,M;? .' W .s •� ,°-, ,-r .0 Q% �.. w } 'u ".) ^ as .r•, ii rl 15 W y C u•; JCs �" .'C.., •� e,.-, '� p c�a •� C N E �' iq .A r. w "O y 4. •�. ° .ro E`er two a, 3 •.- `J `' o `S ` .� L ar G >, ."�. 7 cd r 5-. cd �" --' °> c y a n n Y a? on y' r b w c v oo _ 3 °w' o > w i O N C> C 0» cd t: L, W 0 w U sem. .C. m >, �' !., E' w cFp 'a U �• ° ,"' w Gil °' w °i v txp aG y +'~+ a -ao o eo G� a� E v y o o. c l C c c a. y ' er, -- > v U ro oo w. c w E m QO CLI L,n 'r ff5 W' ✓moi .. } N " �C "» y 1 �4 Q4 U o +� C 's+ } Ln cd d cu w 4t 4. n Sa C tCv :q . C °� cn O ��. as d� p «�". cd .Tj 'C1 Q pqj M a , .M M cC rn v fl O ar ^d G '� _C O O In �' Ca '•' "� V A. Ci` �.' -C 0 r. w F 'C y .1L '°_' ' C �,� C C O c� c. .b1J s. "' U v y G ,C) d. c • '- °' o ID ;_ cl b °D 'b = ca a) a pq ao W y r� 44- GJ 4 v ea e) � Qa cct U U GO : a)t. . ° ma v _ � ,,,, n° �'' C U Cl . a a) w •r -� .r,,:.' .~�-^ ^' .r.' ,� a-. G ri ... c,1 F U id v F. td© rn• o w Gq w O C1. -� sC, " " GCf oD = Jo _G 1~ 5' 'D '" 0 V -S cam •' E Gti Y nr y A Ca C �s > o w > El GCa on CZ � ars w W3> E 1 a v ,°n n' �; b 0 o 0 0 '.� .� '� �° r E w ed C w cd .e w° vc°'na ® C i•1 O°cr: . Gan r. ya' , " �air a° a .�'•F°u�J">i, cr Si *a�'": a�r J.*`�°c�' •yC U o �s C -6 U U i' y W � ,Vw cl opa) "D E ,©o a ga �s 72 U en U Cai w.2 �o o C7 a `� .0 °' °) °' aai S° a `� 6 t o" cti u > f��] i 'U" Gv.O �' •U•• �'" .�,,. 43 L3 y L" U y .C� cl Zn C .+ > O r C rj va v csS QJ fl 40- "'O V•. uUi a3 © •y {% f -t. 3 cd v O F/"t �. 4LD v C cd ed m G> N 3 .fl v 1 O v� © U A .— O C G a. b C v C U •� v to ey U tD p 'O U ctl 7 µ O a7 v U �1 .� vv •i 1. 0 by wbJD u v> v ami °' m a a °a v °�' E .moo ' 3 -" d v v° al U ti O U U �, GA y O a ccs a G a '< pD U. fl «� •� y_ l3 .'� FL ❑ U .C3 m O -C1 vi vi i U tz E C O ❑ 7-, U `.. Rr " ccS p t O •aG w W U s." cd A" © ' ��, + f v ^cV .� 4b � U y Cz .Q r- m `� U b y m u v OO O O u U .-r v E 5 se o > �4 G i y pOp vrA Lt, O a3 O U u C C O �' p cct -v .0 a3 Co cd OJ Q i F" t' °�' •o tw .E cc a� '�3 v U bn •� v -o °�' o w. W °o °�' o 0 LZ 10 2t w O ,•�,, wv, " O -ti sn 7 Z -0 '47 �i ,, m ©. , E 8 � v ai •;, ,� G °y 3 `Ll a3 •"^ y ctv ws a on -e v ,u a3 u , >, b a n °: , U a ca •= ca y co rr C p c. .- .> vv 1r a1 4 = ami v °+' ani N aU] j N cUi� cUi � pp v U . c . ..v v 63o.rycd + I- > °0 E E v a 4� v bo 41 1+) v v > >,y -C rn cd E `a ^o. vy " aiEE `lb tv � °O U• u c 43 Ec.a? .a c a � zs ~ oa3 vv : o >, 72 ow = U _ cd �y F y ^_ F O F 'Crn C a .a G a °' > 0 as w . Et .� et43 �, v r a o v oc3 GQ ti �, u .c �, -� -v U �., °.3 Q G w R. W _„ : S913Iy8n uBlsap;0 "Pei 6ulujn; LunulpuiyV 'z -1I aige•1 (lay aauPIST SV "lelrodsue{L aarPnS) y4%l,s Z86 ui paragteppoeJS se 3allar3 ,£S g1!m a!3lyan uSisaQ (lay aauelslssy vollewdsurlj aan3rnS} yy1S Z861 u! paldope ss 3a1rc11 ,Sb gltm olalgan uSlsa( SE S,9 0'Z 0.9Z Lt L'OZ 00 1-6 Z'ZZ Z'61 6"8I 0'b! b•bZ S"LZ S'Ef ap!su!(4g) sruul -ntmupM (1j) 0S bZ bZ 017 09 OS SbSb sn!pei Suluiul us!sap 0/14K flyd Ild HIN bll-fiM 96-HM+:L9-9M:Z9-IIMa Sb sb Ob SE Zb Zb bZ uraunt M JOUCAL .1al!BAL -ZailrAL awoH aalpt kL jallmaluaTa!i a 09-aM 09 -GA% 0 UM Sna-V Sa1H fis d logwAS H pug lu© laAMU wloy --!waS -!wa G -ItuaS ,a1�I U011 ;S-aa!azoauop aH1e Z alglPatu sng 5% llan{L aujPue 4l!►i 4l!M .ru3ra8 no(( a1dllL -aa)ul au a s_aralerl ,ralul palul a!lv !lull au!5 lluflfp al3u!S ra5uas -SedawOH WMA m lsa(l rolom .re3 aa8 -massed allld -.Ialul fl'3 ileJl -ura$ -massed -uJ1iL jalpml -!was -luras 0 N w x w CE 2==) N O ; r G ' ri+ r r ` a © F w W � d O a I p, � +r, Q LL O O ,, I r++r rr z O - = Z U w S w w W>2 . `e i i - `.n zoF ' -----------------`---`------- -- 020 000 4 UY W J _ t`, 5�, � - 6. J W tl rra Z W 2 I + 1 r+ �;• X 2 F FOO `% LLJ 61 a In ZSO mFZ r*+ CS ELGuJis � w a i F- F-WSA 0 F Cr 4.1 Er • m �_- .� FJ0W U -w ori Q M LLOo= 1l J - .. _' '.'.. � a '•s � �:5"'E � •Q!S'�'��4 �''^�"'+, .�i4. 1°'71•L'c�s� '�� �4� -S4�S�-. �"y5e+f [9 ZO �] Vi,'v' I O H ow O 1 + ro w � CY J , b; = Z V i ' ',Vo rr Q z V /r // N J - as z o F `, c� `x I j !/ ,/ 0 wz� O - 000 Ln it J L6 -jCL Q M F O IL d 0 I I ! ! ', ,, ° O J w v ?Wx I I / + m CL El , I r 0> Oma= ! Q Fay Zw= - as p3-Jcn , , e-' '' ------ --!80 s �OwF r' xr f t r ----------------------- o vaa ui En ' • !y m x • a. � �rr E J F J r sxaw= w x 1 i. a F n W sQ _M En toIr W 2 L M LL O W R 4 F J W L S W O O v F > O Z _ w W Z W [Y wox J p v dIr ww m O F 000 Cc OCc J enL� J FS- F d O. W -i _j LU ?sit3 it F h00 tr. x X LU "4LL 0 O � J to torinI-z W as ,in 4 Q w S to i s F -w fin. cr EhS Z*4p W — z •d x t„ Ir F6-�pW x W E) 6 F,Ox O O 17Q° n e, s • °1 0 w N , e 4 N > W 2�Ir z) � 2 Q d' a 1 i r rr z .0 0 v, -J i +•re N 0 z 2 uV I I r / s'+ W } V) 4 I I + '' 4 4xU r Ircn W W ° .L e I r e .'ss+, .� c ,SA w 7 o D I I e r .' m 9 r / ' a LL z 3 Q ' I�ifl° F F LL i 1 r r Q tu 0.WJ J W t 0 wz rr CL S W LL `aC - 5 5V e� $ o 3: f Q H 4 LL O 1 `� 3zJtn O F ++ iawH Q�4 � E to 0 � v � E ti Jr U M a W F f 3a _O ti m N ui w -- a y, fC H L LL X w ° N ryox O N m I03 e 4 0 0 , W s. G G O U E o. 3 DD GO cc h ev c tn.1114 4 r c s y o -� y c o 3° ol .fir ��+ •� U � w � tb0'O U O � .N � Q al tom, V MQ LCCC U tom. . ? vS w o y °b o u . E 1�-. ril w O Cil rs F, R. � •y ,� 'i, a� t�. Ep :tl � vOi '� ro µ v t° 000 42, ami o d L � =0 Ir >~ Q rr h > t o Oi v x w 3-,g c w w :.+ d] 0 as w vi v lu Efu 6r u � � '; cn too N° w M ° Fr U 7 Q O N m E A .� :'d O e 4 0 0 , W s. G G E o. 3 DD GO H O u Gl�j c° o y y c o 3° .+ U U � w � tb0'O U O � .N � eC '�•ca �.� tom. v 1�-. ril w O Cil rs F, R. � •y ,� 'i, a� t�. Ep :tl � vOi '� ro µ v t° 000 U •'a ami o d o e 57.1 ly %-w.- ..�.1 r� va od v E rA y :.+ d] 0 � >� w vi ❑ n.:l Cil w 6r u � � '; cn N° w M ° C 0 CZ r71 ew v ti A L 0 ° •sd -0v •Cq�d ,1U3 Q U tU -0 -0 b eM-1 e.. W fL V) Ci3 d yO. O U 7 :� rn tm Q °° �. U ° vy •� �. v � � � 0 Ei u 'vd v o U y v O U O m .0 U cvc @7 ..� .... 'rn rh rn a"�"••. N E-1 'U.1 . c+ o° m 0 two 3 c V..c m a° C6 _ v N cu ao a c I C w • � . c 'C7 � v � � U cva P4 U w al �• � cd ,1, I 9 ,+r I o O I i ----------------------- - r W 7 Mrn 2 %+J 2 , s uxo F u 5 1 / w r ; • � � i "2 � w a , ¢ � 4 o moa , U Q = L3 Q W W 2 P F 000 2 J L"w J U. 4 w awJ Jw w r F O Pr LL w LL ~aLo In w x o3wN xowF- m 2P in z U w ai ,(n J J d 4 W S ItLJ F- =3a z~ar w -a w V en =1 UJ F - _j - Q xwm0 p 7 P x I 9 ,+r I o O I i ----------------------- - r LL +h, � Oa zWxIx � //' r 'tf w 0 a r. to I r rn w Lli J 1 CYw 9 LLJ a w w '. .` r` L) i31 F P J- ------------------------ s- P O 000 it -J1 O T iL Ir t q 1 U ---- IL W -J W ZWS ` 5`, I cr N W D S it M 4-00 LL S F F1 rc U-3 i /�� LP Ln U7S20 + I i r/9 O Lu C G LAaawx r '� zCk LD ,n2Nw Jd7 H f�arr CI r w CM, " LL ''1 f7�� • I` 1, u I � , s w 5 1 / w r ; • � � i "2 � N , , LL +h, � Oa zWxIx � //' r 'tf w 0 a r. to I r rn w Lli J 1 CYw 9 LLJ a w w '. .` r` L) i31 F P J- ------------------------ s- P O 000 it -J1 O T iL Ir t q 1 U ---- IL W -J W ZWS ` 5`, I cr N W D S it M 4-00 LL S F F1 rc U-3 i /�� LP Ln U7S20 + I i r/9 O Lu C G LAaawx r '� zCk LD ,n2Nw Jd7 H f�arr CI r w CM, " LL ''1 f7�� • I` 1, u Li rn y 0) u a04cm ¢I O / 4 rzu 1 1 / r w C fn w w \\ I I ! a c {p x044- \ I I r 1 � v B / 0 �, z 3 r - H O 0 n / 93 dWJ �jLAj EP W \\ r r �� Fnn Ui \ 1 _ a o �w� `�� \\ \ I !�` ---�_— _- __-------- iso cnzw= 4.0 =0wh >> NrMM0 ��'\> �\ Ir+\ 1`.� Al �'��� 00G 7 or •� >> \ , 4 c 'C S CLX. a w Ld F > \`. 4 If c p SJ] � _ Rh \t4 h W#a D {�Fa: En Z d H u m Q3 2 M f!7 n a W w G 0 W w ... Caq U_> c m 9y —xF3 p F `a F70x W y zw V) u W p cc ^u p J M Z U U d x C] d ac qq w W `•�"+ N O F 6 FN 000 0e 0 2wJ 4 h F p d w ti 4 w J J W Z W x ait F moo w ai W ki x F - a: z F� a a, o 3R: C x4w0 f7 x x 0 (n F Z W F Lo V) d Lu iL W x W d I� W PL x CDLU €c cn ZErm to :3 W W W I� �p>w> Swpp h 7 O i ---------- - -------- ---.._ (D F 1tl g w 4 U) L n = � O w O N r C w Z 4 Q 4 C o CM w a � � m n a o � N V n c ❑ Q. G N h 6 o > � �C L C _ a a " .E E �Cl) � o Ek V Vy N m — vi m o � 1 W zWz wow a O J 7 x2V Q � V d La W 7 W F 0 f to 000 0 = W 0 Q �LL dWJ .J w Z F-` F�-O0 LL M W11 ' Q ZI O i Nx O N Z S W �Q Lw C3 amu. W (` hw3`a O [� F Q to zQ� Q z . 0— R rW W W J O yxh# 41 = W 7 O a >ox v G9 zz U; Z W Q� 1X- L=} Ln U.]Oa J O L) 2 V cn Q � � U W W =Oh F H va O00 LYto J =w0 F b 4 4 LL W J J W UJ 2 H # � Lrz r00 4 LL W W F cc �- i awo W x 4 Jy V7=WO u7 Z W 4 N a.cwz w 0. Lu 2 F W # a X: z~aN r W — z .a DW 7W WLY F J p W fl7 U to W 2 yxj 70 F 7070 41 1 %I ' 1 I i a\ I I I Y \ \ I I J C a - - a F / s r - - -------------- ----- --- \ I t -- e , ! aa\ jai r / Z U) T(D Y - `a. , .. v,1J -_X; ` s'i+• Vil;.ii.. i� n,k.+j.. .e1* ,Hai, ;'r"1'i 3'' �' v'ti:'"jtr`', "'L� ;?F«,.y �' _:^ Jr `ICY ,;i; .; C 1 I \ I '` r i Ilr M1yb V I � yj1 \Y \ ;ai Rte_ Z U) T(D Y - `a. , .. v,1J -_X; ` s'i+• Vil;.ii.. i� n,k.+j.. .e1* ,Hai, ;'r"1'i 3'' �' v'ti:'"jtr`', "'L� ;?F«,.y �' _:^ Jr `ICY ,;i; .; C 1 h LJ o� Lu a: h U � NNu � wow o wn� CS p � 4 r lI rI rI 0 J n a F Z U it a=u ti 4 Ir ------------------------ aMcr w w qF L,j0 ll v c 1 1 FW all � y o.o N W J x Q o m F F- L� G a •_ 2 W J 1LrN J uj W La M z X x w �} F-00 wL, � p0 U L, cr Lu w rcxF 3 4 W 4 �:z_jul N U, Z i 0 W F ti u)vrF-Z W d = N W S Q Fw 3c CL fL G W x gaw{ C — Fw-=;a W Z o w� z •� F J p GJ �ww� b Jpw uj v q =Wp0 F>0 ti I 1 I 1 o� awi I � NNu � wow o 0 CS Q�J r lI rI rI 6' n a 1 , I 4 , / it a=u ti 4 Ir ------------------------ ws W 7 0 F qF F !A ll v c 1 1 © 0o all � y NL.J F- F- LL Q LL d m W J G J W •_ 2 W UJ 1LrN Zx3 2 F M � x Ccz �} F-00 wL, W l,. U LU 2 Fasof� O N U, Z w F rl on — J F J � aawx F W S Q Fw 3c CL x 3: CY N m W LY N W w lL F J p GJ U W b =H3 41 A o v I 1 I 1 r I r / o tri w L I I F V i y Q 0 N o C 0) !' 0 I 1 I r lI rI rI 6' n a 1 , I 4 , / it a F L ------------------------ 180° s ll v c 1 1 -- G � R, _- u M m E l e I I } o u •_ 2 L 1LrN d Inr M x 11 I I TFJ v o tri w L 0 N w J V i y Q 0 N o C 0) !' 0 o 'qNj 6' n a a F L s ll v c � M m N G R, L 3 X o M m E l e I I } o u •_ 2 d Inr M x U �I N U. Avw +j :4w W I � I C� M> Li i I I / © ` a v U N ©N�"I Awa yt� O r CT , r M W w a O ac¢ i I'r o .r„LI w Z N =zu a i' N Q K ,ZU 1 ,� Ir uj J W W uj 1 U x> aww 4 I I // �� ����--�-----------v o U) p} w > I I r / / fry O 00 Er L,) ©o O F 1- LL I � d w J Z Skp I ly r i ✓� I w ate" JLU I / // 2 G7 W m F Mac Zyxhow r r Ir + r-00 wIr- w Ir moo ,aF ��Ij 44 Sfi N wS 3 z cy � LL �` t a r C O X O w h Nx O M LU t I, ,t `y`I r� y r If _„____ - -_-_---__- - 4 � I w LL 0 Na WS aawz �CLWF z L 1-CLN ui ' Zw'� CS a4wz 2awF- �!�� a• www¢ h J p W a: CLLd NSF# a Ur Q N W ` o 5 w 0 H > 0 T o m N� i Dww CC h Ja W �.. \ _ K::D v U L)N _ CYl d R r�oi 0 N Avw +j :4w W C� > x w Ir 1 1 1 1 I 1 v U N ©N�"I O r CT , r M W w a O i I'r o .r„LI w Z N =zu a i' N Q K 1 ,� Ir uj J W W uj U x> O 00 Er L,) F 1- LL � d w J Z 1 1 1 I w 2 m F Mac `. r r Ir + r-00 wIr- w Ir N wS 3 z cy � �t a r If10" O X O w h Nx O t I, ,t `y`I r� y r If _„____ - -_-_---__- - 4 � I w , ,y aawz �CLWF z L 1-CLN ° ' Zw'� t www¢ h J p W NSF# 5 w 0 H > 0 T U C r� V 7 CD To ■ • 0 q9 Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vaiLco.us Project Name: Variance from front setback PEC Number: PEC030003 Project Description: Variance application (from front setback) Participants: OWNER COCCHIARELLA, CARL A. & KATE01/06/2003 Phone: 5198 GORE CIR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Pam Hopkins 01/06/2003 Phone: 476-2201 Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, PC Box 3340 Vail, CO Pam@snowdonhopkins.com 81658 License: Project Address: 5198 GORE CR VAIL Location: 5198 Gore Circle Legal Description: Lot: 8 Block: 3 Subdivision: BIGHORN 5TH ADDITION Parcel Number: 209918203006 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Chas Bernhardt Action: APPROVED Second By: George Lamb Vote: 6-0 Date of Approval: 01/27/2003 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: CON0005724 Driveway to be redesigned per redmarked set of drawings. Planner: Matt Gennett PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 • 9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 27, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT George Lamb Erickson Shirley John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Gary Hartmann Sitp Visitq MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie Kjesbo 1. Cocchiarella residence -- 5198 Gore Circle 2. Vail Valley Medical Center — 181 West Meadow Drive Driver: George Approved 2!34103 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Z(*)11 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 A request fora conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C -3B, Vail Town Code„ to allow for a tourist/guest service related facility accessory to a parking structure, and a request for a variance from Title 11, Vail Town Code, to allow for proposed signage and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 181 W. Meadow Drive/Lots E&F, Vail Village 2m filing. Applicant: Stan Anderson Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a presentation, per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello gave a brief presentation. Gary Hartman asked about the permanency of the sign and how the parking operation would function_ Dominic Mauriello stated that the sign was easily removable and the parking operations would occur to prevent any negative impacts on the traffic circulation on the frontage road. Doug Cahill stated that the sign must be removed at the end of each business day. Chas Bernhardt stated that he was in favor of the proposal. Mia TOWN OF PAIL � Approved 2/10/03 George Lamb expressed his support and urged the Town to remain mindful of the traffic impacts. John Schofield expressed his concerns about traffic safety along the Frontage Road and concerns about parking availability at the VVMC to accommodate skier parking. 0 Doug Cahill moved to approve the request as submitted and as outlined in the staff memorandum Gary Hartmann seconded the motion. Chas Bernhardt asked how the Town may call up the CUP if it results in conflicts. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Schofield opposed. Doug Cahill moved to approve the sign variance request as submitted and as outlined in the staff memorandum. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Schofield opposed. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6B-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 5198 Gore Circle/Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision Stn Addition. Applicant: Kate & Carl Cocchiarella, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, P.C. Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett made a presentation, per the staff memorandum Pam Hopkins, representing the applicant, agreed with the staff memorandum and briefly explained the proposed application. George Lamb inquired about the request to reduce the driveway width. Matt Gennett explained the need to reduce the driveway width.. The applicant agreed to remove a triangular portion of the existing driveway on Town of Vail land, as requested by staff. George Lamb was in support of the application, as requested. Erickson Shirley supported the request. The other commissioners had no further comments. Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the request as submitted, with a revision to the condition, as noted on the approved plans. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 0 3. 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 regard thereto_ Approved 2110/03 Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson made a presentation, per the staff memorandum. Steve Riden gave comments on behalf of the applicant and stated that some of the issues that have come about are employee housing and parking. He said if you have a family, you have a requirement for three parking spaces and maybe that would work. He also mentioned basing parking requirements on the number of bedrooms in a house. He said that height regulations and setbacks really have the greatest control over bulk and mass and on the interior floors of a building, it would work as well. Russ Forrest gave a clarification concerning bulk and mass and what we are trying to achieve and further stated that if we look at the simpler zone districts, it may be easier to apply. Erickson Shirley asked if there is clear direction on what we're trying to achieve. Steve Riden answered that at first they were trying to throw out GRFA all together. He stated that now we're trying to modify it to make it simpler and to allow for more flexibility. Erickson Shirley asked for a more specific goal. Russ Forrest tried to further clarify Vickie Pearson's intentions and where she feels the change should apply (i.e. SFR, R, P/S zone districts). John Schofield restated what the applicant applied to change and the end goal of the changes. Steve Riden gave more reasons why modifying GRFA will work for both applicants and staff, in terms of time savings and ease of calculations. Erickson Shirley explained that the PEC typically asks for a more specific request in terms of what they would like changed and how these changes take shape. Vickie Pearson explained that the goal is to take away the restrictions on floor area and how it is measured, to make it easier and to better use basement spaces. Erickson Shirley paraphrased the applicants' main concerns to her satisfaction. Vickie Pearson then stated that their primary concern is with single-family and duplex/multi family uses and eliminating the scrutiny on what happens between the 4 walls. Erickson Shirley asked if the applicant is trying to get more space in the home. Doug Cahill asked if there was a tool they had in mind. Steve Riden stated that the tools for controlling bulk and mass are already there in the form of height and setbackisite coverage limits and this works today. He said, instead of making criminals out of people who convert interior space, there are many people currently who would like to maximize their space with interior modifications. He said there are plenty of things in the code that ensure aesthetically pleasing structures and control bulk and mass. John Schofield asked for any further input. John Baker stated that he would just like to use his basement for storage and a workshop. Approved 2/10/03 He said he can't do that because of GRFA limitations. He said he waited to build his house to hear the results of previous revisions to the Town's GRFA regulations and because he waited he now cannot convert his crawlspace into a basement. John Schofield clarified by saying that the changes he proposed would not alter the appearance of his house at all and that because of timing, he now cannot modify the home the way he would like. John Schofield then asked for further public input and there was none. Russ Forrest then gave a brief overview of the objectives: do we want to change the mass or keep it the same? He asked if there were more specific things we would like to change and is there any further, more specific information we can provide that would be helpful for you to make these decisions? Chas Bernhardt stated he is not crazy about the FAR application and as Steve stated, we really do not need GRFA, except in the case of really large lots. He said if we can keep the bulk and mass as it is now, and do away with GRFA, than that is fine, He said he does not want larger structures. Doug Cahill is for getting rid of all the credits and said if you have minimums and maximums in terms of site coverage, then that should work in its place. Steve Riden said the Town can regulate the buildable area size in the case of large lots and other restrictions, such as parking, would work to curb the size of the house. He said other codes, like the building code work to restrict subterranean levels as well. Doug Cahill is all for staff investigating options to make it work better, 40 Gary Hartman said he understands the confusion on behalf of applicants and architects and the games that are played today to get around the rules. He said he would like to see GRFA done away with and a better system used to control bulk and mass to make it easier for everyone and to make sure buildings are appropriate for their settings. He said when it comes to commercial developments, there can be dimensions of what is a good design and for light/shadows to see how it can be changed. Erickson Shirley stated that the only way to improve the situation is to get rid of GRFA completely and he agreed that we should start with residential and move on to commercial. He also agreed the rules are too complicated and need to be simplified. He said he can only see positives with getting rid of GRFA and do not believe there are any negatives for anyone and he never understood Council's concern of who gains and loses. George Lamb said he has watched GRFA evolve over the years and if we can resolve the inequalities it has created, it will be a good thing. He said he is in favor of getting rid of it, but we need to pay attention to the smaller lots as well. He said he would caution against taking away what a smaller lot has for space. I agree that there are other mechanisms in place in the regulations that control what we want to control. John Schofield stated that it should be looked at in all zones, but perhaps not all at once. He said he doesn't see GRFA as a measurement totally going away, but going away as a regulatory tool in single-family, primary/secondary, and multifamily. He said FAR is trading one leaky boat for another. He said Table 1 in the Staff memo makes it very clear that GRFA only kicks in for lots over 20,000sq.ft. and we need to also look at the buildable area of a lot and we also need to make sure we're not giving a windfall to small lots. He suggested looking at changing landscaping area, site coverage, setbacks, and do a balancing act. He said to look at where the lots are and what is buildabie. He said we have to look at the parking, EHU's, and other issues to see how we want to tweak things. He said 4 Approved 2/10/03 parking is my biggest concern and he would suggest that we look at requirements for more covered parking for the largest lots. He said we must change GRFA and make it easier and less restrictive, but let's do this all correctly and take it on in phases. George Lamb stated that we need to look at the application as it stands and if we want to go beyond it, fine. Russ Forest gave an overview on how staff will proceed from here and that we will work with the applicants, particularly the architects. John Schofield stated a concern over mailing/notification requirements and a hope that staff and the town attorney can be more creative. Erickson Shirley stated a concern that the public is not given the idea that their houses are not going to get smaller as a result of these changes. Russ Forrest said what he would be most concerned about is not creating more legal, nonconforming lots, Erickson Shirley said George's point is great about if we are going to be making things bigger? John Schofield asked, along those lines, what do we do when people want to combine lots? He said it will be a chance for people to come clean on what they have which will allow for inspections. 4. A request for a worksession to discuss incentives for Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Russell Forrest Nina Timm summarized a memo from the Housing Authority that concluded the elimination of GRFA would not have an impact on the creation of Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail. 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-10-9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the size requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison ©chs made a presentation, per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello agreed with staff, but had concerns with the proposed criteria, as stated. He said he believed that bigger spaces may result in bigger trucks and he believed that the majority of the delivery trucks in the Village are less than 40 feet in total length. Erickson Shirley enumerated that he feared that this change at this time may be premature, given the state of the Front Door project. He said he felt that more smaller trucks may be better than fewer bigger trucks. Greg Hall stated that changes are needed, since many beer and restaurant delivery trucks are larger than 35 feet in length. He said the Front Door Project is only a piece of the whole dispersed loading and delivery needs. 5 Approved 2110103 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this item until February 24, 2033. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-3 (Bernhardt left). 6. Approval of January 13, 2003 minutes Doug Cahill moved to approve the amended minutes. Gary Hartmann seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 (Bernhardt left). 7. Information Update Reminder: A public meeting in the Vail Library Community Room on 2!4103 with the Town Council, the PBC and the DRB to discuss a format for communication among the governing boards. Doug Cahill moved to adjourn_ George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 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 6 0 •