Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0324 PECr THIS ITEIW MAY pFFEC-yOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC "MCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEp that the Planni and �y I 0j C, Erbdronmentai Commission of the Town of VfZ will N r a �+ held 6 public hearing in aamrdance with Section a in consi� ail Town Code on March 24, 2003, V erate the Town of Vail Municipal Building. of: A request for a tn.. PROOF OF PUBLICATION exterior alteration, pueWew of a ;proposed maker Vail Town Codes to aallown to section 12- 7A-12, and addiliom a request for u+ hotel red STATE OF COLORADO conditional use permit. ptusratreview l 3. Vail Town Code, to allow for a Ir—gection 12 -7A- club: a recommendation to the '✓ssr of a [exl amendment Section 12.7A -3 I SS. Uses),, Vail Town Code, to allow far retail uses'" lodge to excess of 10 °'Q of the total grass reaid'el bal Iloor area of the structure as a conditional use; COUNTY OF EAGLE a request for a final review of a variance from Sec tion 12 -7A -10 (Landscaping & Site Development), Vail Town Code. to allow for a deviation from the total landscape area requirement. located at 20 Vail Road. 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Mead- ow DrlvelLals K & L, Block 5E. Vail Village 1st Fsl- mg. Applicant: Sonnanalp Properties, Inc., represent- I, Steve Pope, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher of The Vail Daily, that the same daily newspa- Planner. Associates, Inc. Pl George Rulher7warren Cangrball per printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly Council of proposed text amendments to Title in said County of Eagle fora period of more than fi consecutive weeks next prior to the first 12. zoning R egulations. Vail Town Code. for pro- publication Of he annexed legal not or advert is ement; that said newspaper has been dmitted to the re and sen de ads iregard thereto - United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amend A� plicant. Town of Vail ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices Planner. Blll Gibson and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. A request for a recommondation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text at to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every AppIlcant: Town of Vail * number of said daily newspaper for the period of ...... .... consecutiv insertions; and that the first Planner: Matt Gennett . A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town (} - Council tar a ma'ar amendment 10 Special Devel- publication of said notice was In the Issue of said newspaper dated .... ..... ....... ............................ opmeni District f�o. 3s, pursuant fa Section 1a -sA- . 10, Vail Town Code, to allow for a mixed -uSa hotel; .... and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper a r equ e s t p for a final review of a A - 3 , ail use permit, pursuant lc Section 12 -7A -3, Vail Town Code, la allow far Typo III Em loyee Housing Units dated..... { l ..f ..... A.D... C { : ..... . and a tractional lee club; and a request for a r�c- ............... 4mmendation to the Vail 'town Council fora pro- posed - s rezoning of Lot 9,A, Vail Village 2nd Fding Heavy service (HS) District to Public Accom- In witness whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand this ,.,,.,, day of modarson (PA) District, located at 2e S. Frontage Rd and 13 Vail Roadll-ots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Appiicant. Nicoilel Island Development Compa- 7Inc. - ............ ..................... ...... .................. Planner: Altison Ochs Publisher A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12. ' Zoning Regulations. Vail Town Code, to amend the I.Gross Residential Floor Area GRFA regulations Subscribed and sworn to before me, a note p ublic in and for the Count of E State of Colorado, k1 the Hillside Residential ), woF n Re Single Fatuity notar p y � Residential SFR), Two - Fatuity sfrletNiel Rj, ') y } - Two - Family Re Psrderktal (I Residential Cluster {RC), Low De this . + i :: ............. day of ..i..L:l�,..:''L'r rtsrl Multiple Famil (LDMF), Medium Density Mu N - Famly (MD d Housing stric forth cletal in regard thereto. gApppllcarrt: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson A request far a recommendation to the VaN Town - Council of ,proposed text amendments to SrfcWenB /L•(// ztX� -a .. ........,. 12-6 B -2, 12-613 -3, 12-6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12-ISID4, 12- • ............................... . L_ ' • °" `" ' " " " "'" 6D -3. Vail Town Coda, to allow a Type It e housing unit as a permitted use and to el' r a Notary Public Type n employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Fami- Iy Residential (R), and lWo- Family Primary /Sacon- My Commission expires ....... ,. c Ff.L.Cs' (, dory Residential (PS) districts, and aot[ing forth de- tails in regard thereto - Applicant: Town of Vail Community Devel1W marl, Department Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about these Pro." posals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vad Cam- muntty Develo monk Department office, 75 South Frontage Rood, The public is invited to attend the protect orientation held in the Town of Vail Com- munity Devalopment Department office and the site visits that calk (97D) 479 -2r public Please 136 for additionai formatsson Sign langguage interpretation is available upon re- quest wi 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2003. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE 1S 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 Vail Town Code on zo March 24, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and/or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto_ Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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 2 " 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 2 "d Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et-al. Planner: Bill Gibson U ei T0W `OF MIL A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -613-2, 12 -68 -3, 12 -£C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type II employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2003. 0 40 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 Vail Town Code on March 24, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George RutherNVarren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and /or corrections and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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 2 I Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2003. 1 TOWNVOFK4IL �` 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 Vail Town Code on March 24, 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 proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -613-2, 12 -68 -3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type II employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road_ The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2001 TO WNV OF *VAIL STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE 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, 1679, or any amend- ments thereof, and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duty 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 umber of said daily newspaper for the period of ................. consecutive insertions; and ;hat the first publication of said notice was in the Issue of said newspaper dated!t�'�r.[kr�t.. �.....4n ......... A.D......... -. and(that the last ^ publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper datedt .. ... - -W,. A.D. ......... ........ ,. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this day of ..�!�- 'L..... .......... . .. ... ,. ,................ ....... Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before e, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this ........ e�!-- - ----- day of ...... ....... i r ....,...... , . .................. 1 ... f Notary Public My Commission expires ,,... ...'G... /.h.... • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, March 24,1003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Communiy Develop- ment DapL PUBLIC WELCOME 11.00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits 62:30 pm 1 _ Hud Wirth -Vail das Schone 1st Filing 21 Four Seasons - 13 Vail Road • 3. Sonneoalp - 20 Vail Road Driver; Isaorge NOTE: H the PEC hearing extend. until 6:00 p.m.. the board may break for dinner from x:00 - 6:3(1 Public Heanng . Town Court Chambers 2:00 pm I. A request for a final recommendation of a mar amendment to Special Development District D. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10. Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval,. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 20M). located at 100 ast Meadow Drivsi Ots M, N. & 0. Block 5 -D. Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Rumor 2, A request for a r ecommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amend ments to Sections 12 -6 &2, 12 -6&3, 12 -6C -2, 12- aC -3, 12-60 -2, 12 -60-3. Vail Town Cade. to allow- a Type It employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type $l emptooyyee6e ho"I"51 unit as a conditional use in the Single-Family Resr denual (SFR). Two - (amity Residential (R), and Two - Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (PS) districts. and setting forth details on regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson 3- A request for a conditional use liar mil, pursuant to . 12 -6D -3 ( Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for a private edu- cational insatueon, located at Parcef e, a resubdivi sion of Tract D, Veit des Schone Ist Filing, goner - ally known as the 'Hud Wirth' properly. (A lult moles & bounds description is available at the De- partmanl of Community Development upon re- quest). ppp ant: Children's Garden of Learning planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, pursuant to Secttan 12- 9A -10, Vail Town Code, 10 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 end a fractional fee club; and a re- cpuest for a recommencialion to the Vail Town Council for a proposed rezoning of Lot 9A, Vail Vil- lage 2nd Fil from Heav} Service (HS) Distr;ci to Public Accommodation I& District, located of 23 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Roacill-ots 9A& 9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Conlpa- rly Inc Planner Allison Ochs. S. A request for a final review of a pro- posed major exterior alteration, pursuant to Sec- tion 12- 7A -12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a hotel rOdevelDprneni and addition; a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7A -3. Vail Town Cdde. to allow for a fractional fee club, a recommendation to The Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 12 -7A- 3 (Conditional Uses). Vail Toam Code. to allow for retail uses in a lodge in excess al 10% of the Iota] 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 tram the total landscape area requim. ment, located al 20 Vail Road, 62 E, Meadow Drive, and a2 E. Meadow Drivell-ols K & L. Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc represenl- ed 6y Braun Associates, Inc. Planner. George RutherfWarren Campbell the Vail Town Cow request for a recommendation to of proposed text amend- ments to Title 12, Zoning Hegulatians, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area � GRFA) regulations in the Hillside ResidentiM HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two -Fame Iy Residential (R), Two- F'amit Pdmary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC 1, Low Density Multiple - Familyy (LDMF(, Medium Density MufbFle- Farrxty (MOM F), High Density MtAtipte- Family (.H17MF), and Housing (H) dstricts. and sel- ling forth detaoiS in regard Therein Applicant Vicar.. Pearson, el.al Planner 8111 Gibson 7. A requesl for a recommandation 10 the Vail Town Council. 10 allow for text amend- ments to Title 11. Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details m regard thereto Applicant: Town of Vail Planner Matt Gannett S. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council at proposed taod amend - mems to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed 'house keeping9 amendments . and/or correclions, and setting lori}t duds in re- gard ltrereto. P% plicanl: Town of Vail nne': Hil! Gibson 9. A request for a recommandalion to the Vi6l Town Council of a proposed text amend- ment to Section 12 -10.9: Loading Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the requirement for loading berths & setting forth details In regard thereto. % lioart: Town of Vail nner. Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2003 lu Approval 01 March 10, 2003 minutes 11. lrlormatron Update Greg Amsden text amendment proposal The ap- plications 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 unity Development Depart- ment, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479- 2138 fo information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 hour notilicalion. Please Cali 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- lormation. Communrly Development Department PlRfhsiteQ lufarch 21, 2003 in the Vail Daily is PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 40 PUBLIC MEETING Monday, March 24, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Hud Wirth —Vail das Schone 1 Filing 2, Four Seasons — 13 Vail Road 1 Sonnenalp -- 20 Vail Road Driver: George AG �� s „ �0 "12:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final recommendation of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001), located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -6B -2, 12 -6B -3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type II employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two- Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson 3. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -6D -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for a private educational institution, located at Parcel B, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1" Filing, generally known as the "Hud Wirth" property_ (A full metes & bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development upon request). Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs yi T'oWl OF FAIL ' MEMBERS ABSENT 4. 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 2 n0 Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 5. 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code„ to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple- Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple- Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and /or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson • 0 9. 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 requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2003 10. Approval of March 10, 2003 minutes 11. Information Update Q Greg Amsden text amendment proposal 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 March 21, 2003 in the Vail Daily. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, March 24, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits - 1. Hud Wirth — Vail das Schone 1" Filing 2. Four Seasons — 13 Vail Road 3. Sonnenalp -- 20 Vail Road Driver: George 11:40 pm 12 :30 pm * NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:40 pm A request for a final recommendation of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001), located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 (Hartman recused) APPROVED is 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -6B -2, 12 -68 -3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type II employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT George Lamb SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 3. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -6D -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for a private educational institution, located at Parcel B. a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1" Filing, generally known as the °Hud Wirth" property. (A full metes & bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development upon request). Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2002 4. 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, pursuantto 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 2" 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 2 nd Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2002 5. 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2002 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28, 2002 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28, 2002 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and/or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Bill Gibson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 't CONDITION: That the definition of "Vail Comprehensive Plan" be revised to eliminate the word "physical." • 9. 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 requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2003 10. Approval of March 10, 2003 minutes MOTION: Gary Hartman SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 11. Information Update Q Greg Amsden text amendment proposal 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 • NRR -20 -2003 13 :08 FIRBTBANK OF VAIL 9 &T&W 0 OF WAIL Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, co 81532 Gentlemen: 970 479 3309 P.02 17 VAIL ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81557 970- 476 -5686 March 19 2003 I RE: Sonnenalb Expansion It is my understanding that opposition has emerged with regard to the proposed expansion of the Sonnenalp Hotel and that this project will be on your agenda for approval at your next meeting. From what I have learned, the disagreement for approval centers around the relocation of street vehicular access to the Talisman site, which will cause the Town of Vail to move its `control gate' on East Meadow Drive a bit further to the west. The cost of this move, Whether i*1 dollars or in additional vehicles, see-rs to be a small price to pay in exchange for improved pedestrian flow and enhanced aesthetics. We were initially impressed with the expansion plans presented to us a couple of years ago, and feel this minor change in the traffic pattern should not influence your decision for positive approval of this project. The addition of the proposed pedestrian walkway along this TDortion of Meadow Drive will most certainly improve the pedestrian_ experience down this street. The Scnnenalp has proven its ability to provide facilities that visually complement our village, and they have also earned the international respect as a fine mountain resort. This not only contributes to the sales tax revenues of the Town of Vail but further elevates the Vail reputation. Therefore, FirstBank of Vail believes this project will be a fine addition to Vail Village. Fi_stBank of Vail strongly supports the approval of this project by the Planning and Environmental Commission as presented. S nc rely , urs, a. Rvger A. Eehler President FcAB: sjw — MAR, 19, 2003 12:55PM -- GORSUCH LTD NO. 4892 — P. 2/2 March 18, 2003 Town of Vail Planning and Environmf 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81 632 RE: Sonnenalp Good Day, I aim writing to express twenty years the Sonne providing Vail with a 1, not only improve the lc dramatically improve b now shops and a new & It has come to my attentic that the neighboring Talis big scheme of things this that should stand in the w road" with town busses, a negative impacts. Truth 1 The new sidewalk that is walk other than the road. road will be addressed by I encourage you to Sincerely, &1 i Dave Gorsuch �pRs Je LTD Sk !'e, Commission strong support for the proposed Sonnenalp redevelopment. For over has set the standard for lodging in Vail, the Faessler's commitment to quality lodging facility is unparalleled. The proposed expansion will ig experience offered at the Sonnenalp, the redevelopment will also ,ow Drive by the removal of surface parking lot and the addition of that not everyone is happy with the project because it will necessitate an Condominiums access their property via Meadow Drive. In the auld seem to be a very, very mmor issue and is certainly not an issue of this project. Pedestrians on Meadow Drive already "share the ling a handful of cars to the road each day will have absolutely no told, today the buses present a far greater impact on the pedestrian. rt of the Sonnenalp's plans will give the pedestrian somewhere to would seem that any concern about the Talisman cars being on the ie new sidewalk. this project at your March 24th meeting. CO Vail Town. Council 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 10, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001), located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther SUMMARY The applicant, Waldir Prado, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for an amendment to Section 6 of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request with a modification to the expiration date. Staff recommends that the date be modified to comply with the three -year time limitation prescribed in the Vail Town Code from the date of the approval of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001. To go beyond three years from the date of approval may result in a grant of special privilege. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Waldir Prado, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for an amendment to Section 6 of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001. According to Section 6, Approval Expiration: Time Limitations of Ordinance 21, Series of 2001, "The Developer must begin initial construction of the special development district by no later than May 1, 2003, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the Developer does not begin initial construction and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district within the time limit imposed above, the approval of said special development district shall become null and void. " The applicant is requesting that the expiration date of the approval be amended to May 2, 2005. The applicant contends that due to claims and litigation brought against Daymer Corporation and the Town of Vail, he has been unable to begin initial construction and continue diligently toward the completion or the hotel project and that failure to amend the expiration date unfairly limits his ability to act upon the Town's approval. • III. BACKGROUND 0 The original approval of the request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, occurred pursuant to Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, dated January 18, 2000. The expiration date of Ordinance No. 1 was January 18, 2003 Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000, repealed Ordinance No. 1 and adopted a revised approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. The expiration date of Ordinance No. 4 was May 2, 2003 Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001 was approved to adopt a revised development plan for special development district No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The purpose of the ordinance, in part, was to respond to an alleged error in public notification of a previously held public hearing on Ordinances No. 1 and 4, Series of 2000. Ordinance No. 21 was approved upon second reading on September 4, 2001. The approved expiration date of the ordinance is May 1, 2003. This date was selected to remain consistent with the expiration date of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2000. IV. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12 -9, Vail Town Code, provides for the amendment of existing Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12 -9A -1, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is as follows: 'To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations; vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space /landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. • i S The Town Code provides nine design criteria that shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. No changes to the approval are proposed. R. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. No changes to the approval are proposed. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. No changes to the approval are proposed. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive plan, Town policies and Urban Design Flan. No changes to the approval are proposed. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. No changes to the approval are proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. No changes to the approval are proposed. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. No changes to the approval are proposed. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. 3 No changes to the approval are proposed. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The approved phasing plan would have permitted the applicant to begin initial construction by May 1, 2003. However, procedural due process claims and litigation against the Daymer Corporation and the Town of Vail prevented the applicant from acting diligently upon the approval_ Even had the applicant acted upon the approval and continued forward in spite of the pending litigation the Community Development Department would likely not have been able to issue permits for demolish and construction due to the pending litigation. At this time, the plaintiff in the case, Charles Lipcon, has filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals expressing his intent to appeal the decisions of the lower court. As only a notice has been filed, it remains unclear as to which of the decisions is being appealed. Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1�1 The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval with modifications to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2000), located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. The Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request, staff recommends the following condition be made as part of a motion: That Section 6, App roval Expiration; Time Limitations, of Ordinance No, 21, Series of 2001, be amended to read, "The Developer must begin initial construction of the special development district by no later than September 4, 2 004, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the Developer does not begin initial construction and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district within the time limit imposed above, the approval of said special development district shall become null and void.", prior to first reading of an amending ordinance before the Vail Town Council. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request, staff recommends the following finding be made as part of a motion: 1. That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the following standards or has demonstrated that one or more of them is not applicable: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. R. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10, Vail Town Code. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 0 G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. A letter from Connie Dorsey /Daymer Corp to George Ruther, dated February 4, 2003. 5 MEMORANDUM • TO: Rob Seibert, ERW SD FROM: Bill Carlson, Town of Vail Environmental Officer RE: EAGLE RIVER WATER/SANITATION New Water Treatment Plant Project DRAFT EIR REVIEW COMMENTS DATE: March 21, 2003 I have received and reviewed the Vail Water and Wastewater Facilities Draft Environmental Impact Report and offer the following comments and issues relating to the project: 1. Section 1.2 —What wastewater treatment technology will be used? What is the State of Colorado discharge standard and how will the sanitation district address compliance (i.e., copper /phosphorus) with surface water discharge parameters? 2. Section 2.0 -- A site plan/map of the study area has not been included the EIR. Figure 2 is missing in my draft. 3. Section 3.0 — The EIR needs to address concerns with water quality and quantity impacts to Gore Creek. What considerations are a part of the decision making process that specifically address: 1) water treatment alternatives (pro -con), 2) what are the impacts environmental impacts of each alternative; 3) what is the preferred alternative. 4. Section 4.6.2 -- Gore Creek is a high quality sensitive riparian habitat. The EIR needs to acknowledge this and state how the construction and operation of the project will reduce and /or prevent impacts to the environment. The language in this section is simply not true. 5. Section 4.7 — Will the river water pump back have an environmental impact with endangered species. 6. Section 4.8.1— A storm water management and erosion/sedimentation plan needs to be developed and included in the EIR. If the site is greater than one acre in size a State erosion and sedimentation permit will be required. 7. Section 4.83 — Colorado Department of Labor records indicate the site ground water is being monitored for hydrocarbons since 1993 from a leaking underground storage gasoline tank. How does the project impact future monitoring? How will contaminated soil and groundwater be addressed during construction activities? What mitigation is necessary before the State of Colorado brings final closure to this site? Does the district have a phase II environmental assessment report? If so, what are the recommendations? 8. Section 5.2 — A site plan identifying the building set back from the 100 year flood plain and 10 year storm event needs to be included in the EIR. is 9. Section 6.0 — Acknowledge an environmental inventory which includes but not limited to: a. Gore Creek is a Gold Medal Trout Fishery. b. Identify discharge parameters and limits. c. Include an erosion/sedimentation and storm water best management practices program. d. How will contaminated soils be encountered during construction be treated, and disposed of 10. Look at Town of Vail Chapter 12, 12 -12 -5, Report Contents Section E, analysis. The EIR needs to acknowledge that increasing plant capacities will facilitate increased development in the Town of Vail and the carrying capacity of future redevelopment in Lionshead. 11. The EIR needs to address the demolination of the old town shop building which may contain asbestos and lead based paint. Recommendation: The ERWSD needs to contact an environmental consultant experienced in development of Environmental Impact Reports. E.g., Bob Weaver with Hydrosphere, Inc. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: - Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -6B -2, 12 -68 -3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2 12 -6D- 3, 1.2 -13-4, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type 11 employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two- Family Residential (R), and Two- Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson 1. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is proposing to amendment Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type 11 employee housing unit (EHU) as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts. The primary purpose for these proposed text amendments is to expedite the development review process for Type 11 EHUs to make more efficient use of the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Staff, and applicants' time and resources. The proposed text amendments do not alter the Town's existing development standards or criteria for review of Type II EHUs_ Based upon staffs review of the criteria in Section VI of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST A Type 11 EHU is a deed restricted dwelling unit constructed in conjunction with a single - family or two - family residence in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), and Agriculture and Open Space (A) districts. Type 11 EHUs can not be sold or transferred separately from the primary dwelling unit to which it is associated. Type II EHUs must be leased to, and occupied by; tenants employed within Eagle County in accordance with the requirements of the deed restriction. For zoning purposes, Type I I EHUs are not counted as density and are eligible for additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) and garage floor area credits. Currently Type II EHUs are allowed as conditional uses within the Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), and - ' Agriculture and Open Space (A) districts; therefore, all applications for Type II EHUs within. these districts require Planning and Environmental Commission review and approval. Please note that the Town of Vail is not proposing to amend the regulations of the Agriculture and Open Space (A) district. The proposed text amendments will change a Type 11 EHU from a conditional use to a permitted use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) districts. These proposed text amendments shift the burden of reviewing and approving Type 11 EHU applications from the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Staff. The primary purpose forthese proposed text amendments is to expedite the development review process for Type II EHUs to make more efficient use of the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Staff, and applicants' time and resources. The proposed text amendments do not alter the Town's existing development standards or criteria for review of Type 11 EHUs. Currently the Town Staff administratively processes Type 11 EHU applications on the Glen Lyon Subdivision Primary/Secondary and Single Family Lots of Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Ordinance No. 23, Series of '1998, establishes the regulations for Special Development District #4 and specifically allows Type II EHUs on these residential properties as permitted rather than conditional uses. To the best of Staffs 40 knowledge, there have been no negative issues associated with the administrative review of proposed Type II EHUs within the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Additionally, Town Staff administratively reviews and approves (or denies) applications for Type I EHUs in the Two - Family Residential and Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential districts; Type III EHUs in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU -1), Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU -2), and Housing (H) districts; Type IV EHUs in all zone districts; and Type V EHUs in the Hillside Residential (HR) district. The Town of Vail is proposing to amendment Sections 12-68-2,12-6B-3,12-6C-2,12-6C-3, 12-6D-2,12-6D-3, and 12 -13-4, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type it employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) districts. The proposed text amendments are as follows: (deletions are shown in st4q thre)ugh / additions are shown bold) 12 -6B -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the SFR district Single- family residential dwellings. Type Il employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. 2 12 -6B -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12 -14 -18 of this title. Dog kennel. Nome child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12 -14 -12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type I eFpple r 40, 12 -6C -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the R district: Single- family residential dwellings. Two- family residential dwellings. Type i employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. Type Il employee housing units as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. 12 -6C -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the R district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12 -14 -18 of this title. Dog kennel. Nome child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12 -14 -12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. 3 Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Time 11 emnlayee housing units as fb� in r+hanfor 13 of this fiflo 12 -6D -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted: Single - family residential dwellings. Two - family residential dwellings. I Type I employee housing unit as provided in chapter 13 of this title. Type II employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. 12 -6D -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 of this title. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12 -14 -12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools_ Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type 4 emp gyea housing unit as nat{br#h in a4 aptnr 4? of thh s fiila 0 I � � � Q � & � LU w k U / C/) 2 O� Z q � � Q � q� 2 7 7 / � O ƒ » 9 ■ 2 » - 7 \ ){ \\\\ - £ w¢@ . 2 . \ E / / -. . < cr Kƒ ® �7 .�§ /¥\ 3]� 7f °kk/ /[( / 09« /E\g[k \. k %,. Re�ew-sff� . . _ \ f C . j\ \ § o% m CD w /£k © ƒ( 7 ® . \ k \ \ /§ ƒ/\ Q) 2 D :2 ccZ 6 412 / \ &$aG t 57§ � «— Q> \ \\ 4\8 CL Wit / /JJ$J�/ \ k ¢ 9 ■ Ill. B ACKGROUND 0 In September and December of 1992, the Town Council adopted Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 18.57, Vail Town Code, (Employee Housing) which provided for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. Chapter 18.57, has since been renamed Chapter 12 -13, Vail Town Code (Employee Housing). Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, created Type; II EHUs in the Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Prima rylSeco nd ary Residential districts as conditional uses. In August of 1999, the Planning and Environmental Commission began the review of proposed text amendments to the Employee Housing chapter intended to improve the incentives for private developers to construct EHUs. The August 23, 1999, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission (see Attachment C) staff recommended that Type 11 EHUs be changed from conditional uses to permitted uses in the Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Primary/Secondary Residential districts. The approved minutes from the August 23, 1999 meeting (see Attachment D) note only limited discussion of this issue in which one commissioner voiced support for this proposed change and one commissioner voiced opposition to this change. At its September 13, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission further reviewed the proposed text amendments to the Employee Housing chapter which had been revised based upon the August 23, 1999, discussions. The proposed text amendments to change Type Il EHUs from a conditional use to a permitted use were not included in the September 13, 1999, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission (see Attachment E). In April of 2000, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact the Employee Housing chapter to provide additional . incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, made no changes to the regulations listing Type II EHUs as conditional uses in the Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and PrimarylSecondary Residential districts. To the best of Staff's knowledge, the Planning and Environmental Commission has approved 21 Type 11 EHU applications since 1994 and during that same time frame only one Type II EHU application has been denied_ Based upon this record, Staff believes that Type 11 EHU applications that fully comply to the Town's required development standards essentially receive a "rubber stamp" conditional use permit approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff believes that a more efficient approach to the review process for Type 11 EHUS is to all Staff to administratively review and then approve Type 11 EHU applications that fully comply to the Town's development standards and criteria for review. • A . 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& 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; and 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 .or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approvallapproval with conditionsldenial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve • the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the is 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 0 Town of Vail Zoning Regulations Title 12 Vail Town Code Chapter 12 -1. Title, Purpose and Applicability 12 -1 -2: Purpose A. General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Article 12 -88: Single - Family Residential (SFR) district 12 -6B -1: PURPOSE: The single- family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The single - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. • 1= • Article 12 -6C: Two - Family Residential (R) district 12 -6C -1: PURPOSE: The two - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single family or two - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district_ The two- family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6D: Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PIS) district 12 -6G -1: PURPOSE: The two - family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single- family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district, The two- family primarylsecondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Chapter 12 -13: Employee Housing 12 -13 -1: PURPOSE: 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 createdin the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. • A Town of Vail Land Use Plan 0 Chapter II: Land Use Plan Goals /Policies 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sties throughout the community. Town Council Mission Statement We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally- sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. 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 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and The proposed text amendments do not alter the existing development standards and /or criteria for review forType I I EHUs, but simply shift the burden of review and approval of -Type II EHU applications from the Planning and Environmental Commission to Town Staff. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will create -a more efficient development review process for Type II EHUs, and therefore further the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, Employee Housing chapter, and the Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential districts, as noted in Section V of this memorandum. 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 • 10 Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will create a more efficient development review process for Type 11 EHUs thus furthering the purpose, intent, and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the development objectives of the Town. Staff also believes that the proposed text amendments specifically conform to the goals 5.3 and 5.5 of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, as noted in Section V of this memorandum. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed text amendments will create a more efficient development review process for Type 11 EHUs thus improving the level of service to Vail's citizens which is compatible with the Town Council's mission statement which reads as follows: "We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of.Vail and ourguests with a superior level of environmentally - sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities." 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and To the best of Staffs knowledge, of the approximately 21 Type it EHU applications reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission since 1994, only one application has been denied. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistentwith municipal development objectives. Since the proposed text amendments do not alter the existing development standards and /or criteria for review for Type 11 EHUs, Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. Staff also believes that the proposed text amendments will create a more efficient development review process for Type 11 EHUs thus furthering the purpose, intent, and. objectives of the regulations. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Dina Timm, Town of Vail Housing Coordinator, on behalf of the Vail Local Housing Authority, is supporting these proposed text amendments. • 11 B.: The Planning _and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings i - before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 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 amendments to Sections 12-6B-2,12-6B-3,12-6C-2,12-6C-3,12-6D- 2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type 11 employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts; Staffs 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_ • 12 VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Notice B, Vicinity Map C: August 23, 1999 Staff Memorandum (excerpt) D. August 23, 1999 Planning and Environmental Commission minutes (excerpt) E. September 13, 1999 Staff Memorandum (excerpt) I 13 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Attachment: A PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HERESY 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 Vail Town Code on March 24, 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 proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Xt Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -68 -2, 12 -613-3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type 11 employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Bill Gibson • The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Nearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2003. o d , 1 TOWN OF}'ILi W V O O Lai. W r. l� y > R � L C Q o L a rr Q} r, c Al r N W N N o P r m Q F 0 � E ' l Qf W 1`1 tt a Co X CL >1 O L d L1 a E H CL �C V a1 e ' iy �a L CL O L a • s c b era ?as 6 }g �eo 22 W i a H ",n w.Z� w.�,;� w CO N m m C) d ©Li j UZ 0 pn C) M LU O Z i- }} I- s ay- .. o 2 ,pe. o 0 o 4 - - LLI 0 N LU Z i 4 Q LLU F- lIJ J 0 ui pZ w o Q m F w 3. 'w C Z3 . 4� V A C V ``/ rA ti cc E .r M ■ /r W �y � v •� d 0 � 3 t- N _ 16 m Attachment: B w ° W �x e v 5: 0 'B ;'''• ^.�.. -a.. Q m �x e v 0 'B ;'''• ^.�.. -a.. Q m LL m F AM ?� t * a x V H a a g�1 U ll, 3b b 8 �b$ 0 • �x g�1 U ll, 3b b 8 �b$ 0 • Attachment: C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: August 23, 1999 SUBJECT: Potential revisions to the Employee Housing regulations, the Primary/Secondary and Two - Family Zones Districts, and the Nonconforming Use chapter of the Zoning Regulations. Additionally, the proposed new Affordable Housing zone district. Staff: Dominic Mauriello • On June 15, 1999 the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council some potential revisions o the Town Code having impact'on the provision of employee housing in the Town's duplex zone districts, Two - Family Residential and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts presented. Additionally, staff presented a proposal to create 'a new Affordable Housing zone district, which would be a district similar to the GU zone district in that the development standards would be prescribed by the PEC. For the purpose of discussion, staff has divided the proposal into three sections. One dealing directly with changes to the Employee Housing Unit chapter of the Zoning Regulations, another dealing with other changes to the code which have indirect - impacts on employee housing and a section dealing with the proposed zone district for affordable housing. As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units (EHUs)_ Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly "promoting" employee housing rather than acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should work to resolve these issues. The following is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs: • Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for other dwelling units • Restricting the sale of a Type.1 EHU and requiring that it be a rental property • Taking away the right to do a "250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used • Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots • Not providing GRFA credits for multiple- family EHUs (Type III) • Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density • Cage 3 of 5 F OS\991EHTJ3. DOC d Tom OF {'ATL Summary of Potential Zoning Text Changes Chapter 13, Employee Housing 1. Deed Restrictions /Enforcement This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed - so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy requirements. Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report. of rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with the enforcement of EHUs. Deed restrictions are also being added for new Type VI EHU which are units similar to the Vail Commons units and Red Sandstone, where the appreciation on the unit is capped. 2. Development Standards This proposal includes an amendment to the development standards allowing a Type 1 EHU (those allowed on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) which is less than 500 sq. ft, to be detached from the main structure if constructed in conjunction with a two car garage. Staff believes this gives flexibility with design on smaller lots without compromising the overall quality of development. 3. . Application Procedure This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed restricted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow illegal or nonconforming units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Uniform Building Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This will allow EHUs to be created without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage.the legalization of substandard dwelling units /lock -off s. 4. Changes by EHU Type A. Type 1 (2n unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) • Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot must be deed restricted to allow sale) • Allowed an additional 504 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.) • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an EHU • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants Page 2 of 5 ,� • Summary of Potential Zoning Text Changes Chapter 13, Employee Housing 1. Deed Restrictions /Enforcement This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy requirements. Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with the enforcement of EHUs. Deed restrictions are also being added for new Type VI EHU which are units similar to the Vail Commons units and Red Sandstone, where the appreciation on the unit is capped. 2. development Standards This proposal includes an amendment to the development standards allowing a Type f EHU (those allowed on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) which is less than 500 sq. ft. to be detached from the main structure if constructed in conjunction with a two car garage. Staff believes this gives flexibility with design on smaller lots without compromising the overall quality of development. 3. Application Procedure This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed restricted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow illegal or nonconforming units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Uniform Building Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This will allow EHUs to be created without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of substandard dwelling units /lock -offs. 4. Changes by EHU Type A. Type 1 (2 " unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) • Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot must be deed restricted to allow sale) • Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.) • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence • Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an EHU • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants Page 2 of 5 Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be'enclosed B. Type 11 (3r unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft. +. A rental unity • Allowed as a permitted use (currently, requires a conditional use permit)- - Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence • Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit) • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants (inhabitants regulated by Zoning Regs. and Building Code) Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed C. Type 111 (rental unit in multiple- family, residential cluster) • Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit (no credit currently exists) • Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements, but no less than 2 per unit • Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed) • Min./Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft. maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style building • Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and Type IV as 0.333 of a dwelling unit) • Removal of age limitations and number of inhabitants D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory) • Eliminated as a category but rolled into Type III • None exist today F. Type V (Hillside Residential — Spraddle Creek) • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed G. Type VI (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone) • Allowed as permitted use in Single/Two- Family /PIS zone districts, Agriculture and Open Space and conditional use in all other districts • EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rental) • Density, site coverage, GRFA, etc. based on the zone district Chapter b (C and D) — Primary Secondary and Two - Family Residential Zone Districts Minimum Lot Size Requirement The minimum lot size requirement in the Primary /Secondary and Two - Family Residential Zone districts of 15,000 sq. ft, has an impact on the number of EHUs property owners are willing to develop and an impact on redevelopment and upgrading of these units. The 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement dates back to 1973 with the first full -scale re- codification of the Zoning Code (the 1969 Zoning Code required only 10,000 sq. ft. lots). That minimum lot size was applicable to platting occurring mostly in the Vail Village and Vail Valley filings. When the West Vail areas (1986 — 87) and the East Vail (1974) areas were annexed, the Town's zoning was applied to lots plaited in Eagle County without regard for the County's lot size Page 3 of 5 INAIL\DATA1 EVERYOh 'EIPEC\NIF- MOS�99!EHUIDOC requirements of the time. There are approximately 936 lots in the Town of Vail that are zoned Two - Family or Two - Family Primary /Secondary which are undeveloped, developed with a single- family home, or a two- family residence (i.e., this number does not include properties developed with multiple family projects). Of these 936 lots, staff estimates that 32% (306 lots) of these lots have lot sizes less than 15,000 sq. ft. Staff was not able to break down the number of lots by specific lot size. This ability will be available in the near future with the implementation of our geographic information system (GIS). There have only been 20 Type I EHUs created in the Town. Property owners that currently have lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. with a nonconforming second dwelling unit are not allowed to add square footage unless they deed restrict the second unit on the property. Many property owners are not willing to deed restrict their already existing unit and therefore the EHU is not created and generally speaking the properties are not upgraded. Another problem is that on several of these smaller lots, two units exist on the lot by separate owners. They face the same deed restriction problem. What are the ,potential solutions? Lower the minimum lot size requirement in the Two- Family and Primary /Secondary zone districts to a level that includes the majority of lots. This will allow lots to be constructed with 2 dwelling units and a Type li EHU. We believe the result, in the long run, will be more EHUs created. Staff would propose reducing the minimum lot size to 10,000 sq. ft. — 12,000 sq. ft. range, with a provision that this only applies to existing lots that already have lot sizes less than 15,000 sq. ft. Any resubdivision or new subdivision would have to meet the 15,000 sq. ft. requirement. This provision would prevent the assimilation of lots with the intent to create new small lot subdivisions. 2. Keep the minimum lot size requirement, but allow lots to be developed as a single- family home (no change), one dwelling unit plus a Type l EHU (no change), or two dwelling units with a require Type II EHU (new). These changes, we believe, will result in a net increase in the number of EHUs and just as importantly, result in redevelopment of older properties. 3. In addition to the above, allow lots with 2 existing units that were legally deeded to separate parties to add allowable square footage without deed restrictions required. This would essentially promote the nonconformity and allow it to continue. By allowing #2 above, the deed restriction dilemma could be resolved by one of the owners providing an EHU, so that option could help resolve this unique problem. Another solution to this problem could also be utilizing our variance process and allow a variance in these situations and allow residents to expand their homes. This would require acceptance that having two owners of such a property is a hardship warranting the issuance of a variance. Staff believes this to be a viable solution. Effect of Proposed Changes on GRFA, Site Coverage, and Landscape Area Current Regulations 14,000 sq. ft. lot (dwelling unit plus Type I EHU) GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) Page 4 of 5 Proposed Regulations 14,000 sq. ft. lot (either DU + Type I EHU or 2 DUs + Type 11 EHU) 3,500 sq. ft. (base) • • 1 1176 TT 1T16T61 F \fFAVflhtClbG('Ih RT= AAfIC'1 OlSIL'iTT 1Z ll / \I� APPROVED SEPTEME Attachment: Q Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. There was no applicant or public comment. Doug Cahill said this was not affecting the neighbors and to move forward. Chas Bernhardt agreed that there was no impact. Diane Golden agreed that there was no impact. "` :'• ` Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. Galen Aasland agreed with Chas. John Schofield agreed. Russ Forrest said staff would attempt to negotiate with homeowners in good faith and pursue a condemnation action. Chas Bernhardt made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 3. A request for a worksession for amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to Employee Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirement in the Primary /Secondary and Two - Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage Standards. Also, a proposal for a new zone district entitled Affordable Housing (AH) District.. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Maurielio Dominic Maurielio gave an overview of the staff memo with a slide presentation.. John Schofield asked for any public comments and stated that this was a worksession, initiated by the Town Council. Sally Jackel, a Matterhorn resident, said the concept was wonderfui and said it was important to encourage it. She said to not "ghettoize it" like Timber Ridge. She said that neighborhood groups would support this. She then asked about Type VI units. Dominic Maurielio explained that Type VI units were deed - restricted with an appreciation cap. Sally Jackel asked why it was in the Code and why would the Town be concerned unless it was in an Ag /Open Space. She then asked why was it a conditional use in a multiple - family zone district and a permitted use in a single- family district. Dominic Mauriello said it was to label the product. John Schofield said the intent was to loosen the requirements for any EHU. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes August 23, 1999 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Dominic Mauriello said the use was permitted, but the occupancy code was being changed and that nothing needed to be written except per the underlying zoning. Sally Jackel asked about the removal of age limits or the inhabitants number. Dominic Mauriello said it would be in accordance with the building /zoning code without any additional requirements. Farrow Hitt said this was a great idea for opening up options. He asked about an EHU on a primary /secondary. if both the primary /secondary owners could do this. Dominic Mauriello said it would be "first -come first- serve." He said that each dwelling unit would get 250 sq. ft ., but only one unit could build an EHU. He then explained the attachment on a greater than 15,000 sq. ft. lot and unit not attached on a lot less than 15,000 sq. ft. He thought the 60140 split should be 50/50 in the Two - Family Zone District. He said staff wanted to eliminate the Primary /Secondary Zone District and staff did not see any public benefit for a 60/40 split. Diana Donovan supported the concept, but said there was no enforcement vehicle for this. Dominic Mauriello stated there were 46 dispersed units in the Town of Vail. , .. Russ Forrest said once a year staff contacted Eagle County for homeowners and sent letters to homeowners making sure an empioyee was living there. He said he would like to have signed affidavits. Diana Donovan said that within sight of her house, there were 3 deed - restricted units with no employees and no enforcement. She said everytime an upgrade occurs, the house becomes less affordable. She said that density equaled infrastructure impacts. She warned people of all the square footage being occupied when the economy changes and said if every week were Christmas week we could not handle it. She said that this had to be a long -term solution. She said we would have to be able to enforce it and can only allow square footage if it was for an EHU, as this was becoming another vehicle to.make more money. Brian Doyon stated that we had not enough industry to support everyone living here. He said second homes would remain vacant throughout the year. Diana Donovan said it is totally possible and asked what is to keep people from retiring here. She said she was concerned about making decisions that are not long term. She said that changing from a 70/30 to 60/40 split was a huge mistake and we need to understand why the rules were in place, before we change them. Carol Hymers said there were 5 homes originally in her neighborhood and now there were 44 homes and we could reach a problem with density. She said she was concerned with the parking and snow removal on sites with EHU's. She said she was not sure that one EHU is the way to go on a duplex lot, but rather two units. She agreed if the structure on the lot was architecturally ok, it might handle an additional EHU. Diane Golden said that architecturally ok was too subjective and she asked who would make that decision. Harry Gray said he was a big proponent for revising the zoning codes for the EHU`s and felt that site coverage was driving the market away. He suggested letting people build what the market wants. He stated there were 330 lots in the Town that were downzoned when they were absorbed by the Town from the County. He said it was close to $100,000 to build an EHU. He said the rental from an EHU was not going to encourage people to build an EHU, but a carrot was needed for encouragement. He said that 35 houses were built a year and only 1 or 2 have Planning and environmental Commission 4 Minutes August 23, 1999 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 Dominic Mauriello said the use was permitted, but the occupancy code was being changed and that nothing needed to be written except per the underlying zoning. Sally Jackel asked about the removal of age limits or the inhabitants number. Dominic Mauriello said it would be in accordance with the building /zoning code without any additional requirements. Farrow Hitt said this was a great idea for opening up options. He asked about an EHU on a primary /secondary. If both the primary/secondary owners could do this. Dominic Mauriello said it would be "first -come first- serve." He said that each dwelling unit would get 250 sq. ft., but only one unit could build an EHU. He then explained the attachment on a greater than 15,000 sq. ft. lot and unit not attached on a lot less than 15,000 sq. ft. He thought the 60/40 split should be 50/50 in the Two - Family Zone District. He said staff wanted to eliminate the Primary/Secondary Zone District and staff did not see any public benefit for a 60/40 split. Diana Donovan supported the concept, but said there was no enforcement vehicle for this. Dominic Mauriello stated there were 46 dispersed units in the Town of Vail. Russ Forrest said once a year staff contacted Eagle County for homeowners and sent letters to homeowners making sure an employee was living there. He said he would like to have signed affidavits. Diana Donovan said that within sight of her house, there were 3 deed - restricted units with no employees and no enforcement. She said everytime an upgrade occurs, the house becomes less affordable. She said that density equaled infrastructure impacts. She warned people of all the square footage being occupied when the economy changes and said if every week were Christmas week we could not handle it. She said that this had to be a long -term solution. She said we would have to be able to enforce it and can only allow square footage if it was for an EHU, as this was becoming another vehicle to.make more money. Brian Doyon stated that we had not enough industry to support everyone living here. He said second homes would remain vacant throughout the year. Diana Donovan said it is totally possible and asked what is to keep people from retiring here. She said she was concerned about making decisions that are not long term. She said that changing from a 70/30 to 60/40 split was a huge mistake and we need to understand why the rules were in place, before we change them. Carol Hymers said there were 5 homes originally in her neighborhood and now there were 44 homes and we could reach a problem with density. She said she was concerned with the parking and snow removal on sites with EHU's. She said she was not sure that one EHU is the way to go on a duplex lot, but rather two units. She agreed if the structure on the lot was architecturally ok, it might handle an additional EHU.. Diane Golden said that architecturally ok was too subjective and she asked who would make that decision. Harry Gray said he was a big proponent for revising the zoning codes for the EHU's and felt that site coverage was driving the market away. He suggested letting people build what the market wants. He stated there were 330 lots in the Town that were downzoned when they were absorbed by the Town from the County. He said it was close to $100,000 to build an EHU. He said the rental from an EHU was not going to encourage people to build an EHU, but a carrot. was needed for encouragement. He said that 35 houses were built a year and only 1 or 2 have Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes Aunust P3 1 qQg APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 EHU's. He stated serious measures needed to be taken to have the majority of houses have EHU's. He said 80% of the new homes built would net 20 EHU's a year. He said more site coverage and GRFA were needed, as well as being able to separate the EHU's, with a separate curbcut and driveway. He said a 5% site coverage increase was not enough. He stated a single - family home in East Vail sells for less than a half duplex in Edwards. He felt the market would come back if we can show people they can build what they want. He closed with saying that 20% site coverage was very inadequate. Galen Aasland asked if the majority of the people in the Town of Vail like the character of the Town as it is, how would this jibe with that and questioned what was wrong with not being the most pricey real estate. Harry Gray suggested it being on a public ballot. He said there was a lot of tired old product and people couldn't replace homes the way they want. Tom Weber said his biggest concern was enforcement and the more incentives would require more enforcement. He said there were not many incentives for people who live here, but rather for second homeowners. He asked, regarding the application procedure, if we would shut people down who don't comply with the Life safety standards. He said the number of inhabitants should not be removed and reasoning that it should not be what was appropriate for the neighborhood; but rather for fire exit issues. He said he was leery of an EHU zone district and it would be stronger if more incentives were added than some of the other zone districts. He said the development standards couldn't be left open, but it should be defined like a CC2 with what works generally with that use. Brian Doyon said his first priority was enforcement, since half these EHU's were not getting used that way. He thought that part of the affidavit should be that the inhabitant was working in the ift Town of Vail or Eagle County. He said enforcement would bring about an abundance of housing. He said units need to be brought into conformance. He said if garage space was eliminated, we could get into the problem with all the "toys" and so if garages were eliminated storage space would need to be provided for the EHU. He said both parties should have the 250 and density and site coverage could be useful tools as good incentives. He thought an EHU zone district was a good idea. He said the Type II and conditional use permit should be kept. He said he agreed with Tom on the number of inhabitants: Galen Aasland agreed with eliminating the garage. He said he was against changing the character. of the Town. He said it was not a disadvantage to not be the most expensive place in the valley. He said he believed that EHU's need to be EHU's and a system needed to be set up so that people trust the system, without someone enforcing all the time. He felt the Town should allow applicants to remodel, without forcing them to put in an EHU. He said, similar to a conditional use, we need a continuing incentive, i.e., such as a portion of their taxes reduced or a ski pass, with a form brought yearly into Town. He said the cost was the main reason that people don't do employee housing and this ordinance would not change that. He felt it was unethical for the flown to change the rental units requirement and would alienate the existing owners. He felt rent should be at the market rate. Doug Cahill urged the Town to step up code enforcement. Russ Forrest stated that Kris Widlak would be doing enforcement. He stated that there was an enhanced relationship with the Police department and he was working on an affidavit with Tom Moorhead. Doug Cahill suggested an interview or a friendly survey and a lot of this can be done within the building codes right now. He agreed with Harry Gray to put density where density is now. He said, regarding the new zone district, that it was important on looking on how best to fit it and _ what the needs were. Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes August 23, 1999 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 . t. Chas Bernhardt said that this was not a local problem and if we are going to give away density and square footage, we need to enforce it. He said the regulations need to be strict for someone to purchase a unit, as there are now trustfunders living in EHU's. He said he wanted to see the current regs geared towards that. He mentioned the Illegal units that come in to slap an EHU on them needed to be encouraged to be brought up to current health and safety standards. He said that health and safety was the issue. Dominic Mauriello clarified that only legal nonconforming units would be allowed to be administratively restricted. He said people now are adding an EHU for the extra square footage. He said taking the garage requirement out was a real incentive, but as Brian pointed out, there needed to be storage. Chas Bernhardt suggested putting all EHU's into a pool allowing employees coming to Town to go to that register. He suggested coordinating with the registry so employers could change employees. He agreed with Diana Donovan to keep the quality and the housing zoning district should not be a blanketed permitted use. He said as a quasi - government body, we need to protect the rights of the residents. Diane Golden said she agreed with Diana, but was not at all comfortable with eliminating the garages. She agreed with Tom to keep the number of inhabitants: She felt it was intrusive to homeowner to make them sign a legal document, but stated her frustration to approve an EHU and know it will not be used for that. John Schofield stated he was not sure what to do to provide incentives for EHU's. He said we needed to back up and see what we can really do to provide incentives. He asked, beyond the economics, what was the hurdle we have to work on. He said he felt enforcement was critical, but we can't sit with a hammer on people. He thought a central clearing house was good and felt anyone granted an EHU should participate in that system. He felt EHU's needed to be dispersed throughout Town and not be concentrated. He suggested going to an additional type of EHU, without a kitchen requirement, so a bedroom could be rented in a home. Diane Golden suggested defining this new EHU as a "caretaker EHU." John Schofield said parking would be in line with everyone else and he was fine with eliminating the need for a conditional use permit. He said to allow the 250's in addition to the.EHU credit. Dominic Mauriello asked if one of the criteria should be inspections of the EHU, as it might prevent illegal conversions of EHU's and other types of space, however government coming into your home would not be what people would want. John Schofield suggested doing it in a reverse mode. He said, using the central clearinghouse system, an employee could report not having a unit rented to him. Diane Golden said incentives needed to be received continually. Brian Doyon suggested a Rec Pass or Parking Pass. He said when people bring in the paper for verification, call 3 times to rent and if there is no answer, up goes a red flag. John Schofield said a sale of the deed restricted unit does make sense economically. Tom Weber said it just perpetuates the problem we now have and he would not be in favor of parts of houses being sold. Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC how they felt about a detached unit. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Auqust 23, 1 999 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Chas Bemhardt said that this was not a local problem and if we are going to give away density and square footage, we need to enforce it. He said the regulations need to be strict for someone to purchase a unit, as there are now trustfunders living in EHU's. He said he wanted to see the current regs geared towards that. He mentioned the Illegal units that come in to slap an EHU on them needed to be encouraged to be brought up to current health and safety standards. He said that health and safety was the issue. Dominic Mauriello clarified that only legal nonconforming units would be allowed to be administratively restricted. He said people now are adding an EHU for the extra square footage. He said talking the garage requirement out was a real incentive, but as Brian pointed out, there needed to be storage. Chas Bernhardt suggested putting all EHU's into a pool allowing employees coming to Town to go to that register. He suggested coordinating with the registry so employers could change employees. He agreed with Diana Donovan to keep the quality and the housing zoning district should not be a blanketed permitted use. He said as a quasi- government body, we need to protect the rights of the residents. Diane Golden said she agreed with Diana, but was not at all comfortable with eliminating the garages. She agreed with Tom to keep the number of inhabitants. She felt it was intrusive to homeowner to make them sign a legal document, but stated her frustration to approve an EHU and know it will not be used for that. John Schofield stated he was not sure what to do to provide incentives for EHU's. He said we needed to back up and see what we can really do to provide incentives. He asked, beyond the economics, what was the hurdle we have to work on. He said he felt enforcement was critical, but we can't sit with a hammer on people. He thought a central clearing house was good and felt anyone granted an EHU should participate in that system. He felt EHU's needed to be dispersed throughout Town and not be concentrated. He suggested going to an additional type of EHU, without a kitchen requirement, so a bedroom could be rented in a home. Diane Golden suggested defining this new EHU as a "caretaker EHU." John Schofield said parking would be in line with everyone else and he was fine with eliminating the need for a conditional use permit. He said to allow the 250's in addition to the EHU credit. Dominic Mauriello asked if one of the criteria should be inspections of the EHU, as it might prevent illegal conversions of EHU's and other types of space, however government coming into your home would not be what people would want. John Schofield suggested doing it in a reverse mode. He said, using the central clearinghouse system, an employee could report not having a unit rented to him. Diane Golden said incentives needed to be received continually. Brian Doyon suggested a Rec Pass or Parking Pass. He said when people bring in the paper for verification, call 3 times to rent and if there is no answer, up goes a red flag. John Schofield said a sale of the deed restricted unit does make sense economically. Tom Weber said it just perpetuates the problem we now have and he would not be in favor of parts of houses being sold. Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC how they felt about a detached unit. Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes At Ina mt " I OQQ APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 • Tom Weber said no, except for a detached garage with units above. John Schofield said not on smaller lots. Dominic Mauriello asked about allowing a separate curbcut and separate driveway. Doug Cahill said if the site allows it. Brian Doyon said to maintain the existing policy regarding detached units. He said owners needed to maintain the EHU. Dominic Mauriello asked about lowering the minimum lot size requirement, so that more of those lots could be developed with an EHU. John Schofield said taking the variance route gets an application reviewed. Doug Cahill agreed. Galen Aasland said both neighbors need to agree to come in. John Schofield said the first -come first - serve" rule was not written and should be codified. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type II employee housing unit, located at 3847 Lupine Drive J Lot 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition. Applicant: Randy Nichols, represented by the Mulhem Group Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 0 5. A request for a minor subdivision, to vacate common lot lines to create a new lot, located at 2477, 2485, 2487, 2497 Garmisch Drivel Lots 1 -4, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Brian Doyon made a motion to table the above items to their respective dates. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 6. Information Update Russ Forrest mentioned that the TOV received a Lionhsead Master Plan award . He then invited the public to bring in any comments they might have. 7. Approval of August 9, 1999 minutes. Diane Golden made a motion for approval of the amended minutes. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 23, 1999 7 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. Doug Cahill made a motion to adjourn. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. i - t , Il i Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes Aiini st ?'2. 19R9 Attachment: E • ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Plannincil and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council_;; on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. . Staff: - The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. r . RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments: to Chapter 13 of the Zoning Regulations subject to the following_ findings: 'l. That the proposed regulations are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses and generally in Keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. VII. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL_ ZONING TEXT CHANGES Chapter 1 3, Employee Housing Deed Restrictions /Enforcement • This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation The current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not Page 2 of 5 F: 1 F�' F.RYf? \'F%PF.C',kIFMC)fi;99' S1I rX)C MEMORANDUM, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: September '13, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for amendments to Titie 12, Zoning with respect to . Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirements in the - Primary/Secondary and Two - Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage Standards. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On June 15u 1999 the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council some potential revisions to the Town Code having impact on the provision of employee housing in the Town's duplex zone districts, Two - Family Residential and Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts presented. As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units (EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly "promoting" employee housing rather than acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should work to resolve these issues. The following is a list of what we believe to be disincentives to providing EHUs: • Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for other dwelling units • Restricting the sale of a Type I and Type 11 EHU and requiring that it be a rental property • Taking away the right to do a "250" on older homes if an EHU GRFA credit is used • Not allowing enough site coverage to build the EHU on smaller lots • Not providing GRFA credits for multiple - family EHUs (Type III) • Counting Type III EHUs as an impact on density • • Page 1 of 5 F_'& VERYONEIPEC" N4EMl?S1991EHL S 13. Doc 6 *ta Town Q • ri 0 ll. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The ©RB has NO review authority on code amendments. Ill. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 13 of the Zoning Regulations subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed regulations are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. Vl. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING TEXT CHANGES Chapter 13, Employee Housing Deed Restrictions /Enforcement This proposal adds a provision requiring that EHUs be rented and not remain vacant for a period of 4 consecutive months. The existing compliance language is being removed so that violations of this chapter can be processed like any other zoning violation. The current compliance statement provides for "publication" of the violation with the Housing Authority. The proposed language will aid in the enforcement of EHUs by establishing that they must be rented and allowing the Town to cite the owner when they are not Page 2 of 5 meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy requirements. Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with the enforcement of EHUs. Language has been added to the purpose section allowing for the administrative creation of incentives and the development of the clearing house concept. Staff is currently developing plans for implementation of these concepts and will present these to the PEC at some point in the future. 2. Development Standards This proposal no longer includes a provision for detaching garages with EHUs on small lots at the direction of the PEC. A standard for occupancy has been added allowing no more than two persons per bedroom to occupy an EHU. 3. Application Procedure This section is proposed to be amended to allow existing dwelling units to be deed restricted administratively. Additionally, this section would allow legal nonconforming units to be deed restricted as long as they otherwise conform to the Uniform Building Code and can meet the Town's parking requirements. This will allow EHUs to be created without going through a lengthy review process and helps encourage the legalization of substandard dwelling units/lock-offs. Additionally, a provision has been added codifying the first come, first serve rule for Type 11 EHUs. Additionally, any proposal for more than 250 sq. f. of additional GRFA for an EHU shall require approval of all owners of the property. The proposal also includes waiving the DRB fees for a project. Other fee waivers can be developed administratively to encourage the development of EHUs. 4. Changes by EHU Type A. Type I (2 unit allowed on duplex lots less than 15,000 sq. ft.) • Allowed to be sold separately from main residence (currently, both units on lot must be deed restricted to allow sale) • Allowed an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA (currently only allowed 250 sq. ft.) • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence • Site coverage increased 5% and landscape area reduced 5% for lots with an EHU • Removal of age limitations • Removal of requirement that 50% of the parking be enclosed (all parking required on -site) B. Type II (3` unit allowed on duplex lots 15,000 sq. ft.) • Allowed as a conditional use (no change) • Allowed to be sold separately subject to approval of property owners • Units allowed to apply for 250s regardless of EHU presence Page 3 or 5 F :.E4ERYONETL- C\MEiMOSi99THU S1s.DGC • Maximum size increased to 1,200 sq. ft. (currently 900 sq. ft. limit) • Removal of age limitations Removal of requirement that 50 of the parking be enclosed (ail parking required on -site) C. Type III (rental unit in multiple- family, residential cluster)" • Provides a 500 sq. ft. GRFA credit (no credit currently exists) • - Parking simplified to meet Chapter 10 requirements • Modified to include Type IV EHUs (Type IV category being removed) • Min. /Max. sq. ft. modified to allow 300 sq. ft. minimum and 1,200 sq. ft. maximum for dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. maximum for a dormitory style building • Proposed to not count as density (currently count as 0.5 of a dwelling unit and Type IV as 01.333 of a dwelling unit) • Removal of age limitations D. Type IV (multiple family, dormitory) • Eliminated as a category but roiled into Type III • None exist today F. Type V (Hillside Residential — Spraddle Creek) • Removal of requirement that 50 %e of the parking be enclosed (all parking required on -site) G. Type VI (New Type for projects like Vail Commons and Red Sandstone) • Allowed on any existing dwelling unit in the town • EHUs must be sold separately (they are for sale units, not rerital) Effect of Proposed Changes on GRFA, Site Coverage, and Landscape Area Current Regulations Proposed Regulations 14,000 sq. ft. lot 14,000 sq. ft. lot (dwelling unit plus Type I EHU) (either DU + Type I EHU or 2 DUs + Type II EHU) GRFA: 3,500 sq. ft. (base) +425 sq. ft. (primary credit) +425 sq. ft. (EHU credit) +250 (EHU credit) 4,600 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,840 sq. ft. (max.) Landscape Area: 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) 3.500 sq. ft. (base) +425 sq. ft. (primary credit) +425 sq. ft. (EHU credit) +500 so. fit. (EHU credit) 4,850 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft. +7001 sq. ft_ EHU credit 3,500 sq. ft. (max.) 8,400 sq. ft. (min.) -700 sir. ft. (EHU credit) 7,700 sq. ft. (min.) • • • Page 4 of 5 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional (Conditional Uses), Vail Town at Parcel B, a resubdivision generally known as the °Huc description is available at th upon request). use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -6D -3 Code, to allow for a private school, located of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1st Filing, Wirth" property. (A full metes & bounds Department of Community Development Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs SUMMARY The applicant, the Children's Garden of Learning is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a private school to be located at the site generally known as the Hud Wirth property, located at Parcel B, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1" Filing. The Town of Vail Community Development Department is recommending denial of the conditional use permit request, subject to the criteria and findings as outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Children's Garden of Learning is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a "private school" at the site generally known as the Hud Wirth site. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The property is zoned Two - Family Primary /Secondary zone district, which allows "public and private schools" as a conditional use. The request includes the construction of modular units, which are intended to serve as classrooms for approximately 64 children, ages 2 -1/2 to 5 years. The applicant's letter of request has been attached for reference (Attachment B). The request is temporary in nature as it is intended to allow for the temporary relocation of the ABC and Learning Tree schools during the construction of the new facility at the Middle Creek site. The modular units at the Hud Wirth will be removed and the site re- vegetated to its original state, or construction of other uses at the site would commence one the new facility is complete. Reductions of the plans have been attached for reference (Attachment C). III. BACKGROUND ABC and Learning Tree provide early educational services to 2 -Y2 to 5 year old children. In 2002, ABC and Learning Tree merged into one institution and are now called the Children's Garden of Learning. They are currently housed on the i site known as Mountain Bell, and operate under a lease from the Town of Vail. The proposed development at Middle Creek, which is to include 142 employee housing units and the Children's Garden of Learning, is in the final stages of the Town of Vail development review process and construction is tentatively scheduled for fall of 2003. As a result, the existing structures on the site which house the Children's Garden of Learning will need to be demolished. On March 10, 2003, the Vail Town Council voted to allow the Children's Garden of Learning to proceed through the development review process to use the Hud Wirth site for the temporary relocation of their facilities. The Town Council's approval to proceed through the process does not constitute approval of the conditional use permit or the associated design review application. The Town Council also directed the Children's Garden of Learning to pursue other possible locations. Resolution No. 4, Series of 2002 authorized the Town Manager to purchase the Hud Wirth site. The site is currently unplatted and is zoned Two - f=amily Primary /Secondary Residential. It is a vacant 3.069 acre site. The Town of Vail has not yet come to a conclusion as to what uses will be located on the site. The Children's Garden of Learning is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a private school on the Hud Wirth site. While the location of the Children's Garden of Learning on the site is temporary Mess than 2 years), the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zone district does not differentiate between temporary uses and permanent uses. Therefore, the application before the Planning and Environmental Commission is a conditional use permit request for a private school and must be reviewed according to the criteria provided by Chapter 16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code. In addition, the use must conform to the development standards as outlined by Chapter 12 -61D, Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District, Vail Town Code. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, applications for a conditional use permit will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environr Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial/approval with conditions of conditional use permits. The Planning and Environmentai 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. E 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. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a conditional use permit but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design 40 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 Zoning Regulations Staff has reviewed the planning documents of the Town of Vail and has provided a synopsis of the applicable documents below. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code, provides the following with regards to the conditional use permit request: Chapter 12 -6D, Two Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District, states the following: 0 12 -6D- 1: PURPOSE: 9 The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single- family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6D -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 -14 -18 of this title. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section 12 -14 -12 of this title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type II employee housing unit as set forth in chapter 13 of this title. Public or private schools are listed as a conditional use in the Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential zone district. Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Use Permits, provides the following: 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 and evaluation 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 and 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 ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. (Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. The Zoning Regulations also provide for certain Design Guidelines, which guide all development in the Town of Vail. Chapter 12 -11, Design Review, provides the following, which staff believes to be applicable to this conditional Use permit application: 0 4 0 12 -11 -1: INTENT. A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a Town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming permanent residents participating in community life. B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for the Town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the Town as a precious physical possession. The Town Council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the Town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the Town Council has created a Design Review Board (DRB) and design criteria. C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the Town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this Section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this Chapter. D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: I. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and 0 visitors. 5 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built -up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Vail Land Use Flan Staff has reviewed the various planning documents and determined that the following sections of the Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to this conditional use permit request: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. In addition, the Vail Land Use Plan designates this site as "'Medium Density Residential." The Medium Density Residential land use designation states the following: 0 The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities, and institutional /public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and opens space facilities. 0 0 The Comprehensive Open Space Lands Plan The Comprehensive Open Space Lands Plan identifies this site as "Parcel 5" and states the following: Parcel 5: Hud Wirth Property, Tract D High Priority: Town acquire (not with RETT funds) and use for possible West Vail Fire Station and/or Locals housing and /or employee housing. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Undeveloped Development Standard Allowed /Required Proposed Density NA NA GRFA NA NA Setbacks 20/15/15 147/115/60 Height 33 ft. 18 ft. Site Coverage 31,442 sq. ft. 5,093 sq. ft. Landscape Area 94,325 sq. ft. 139,407 sq. ft. Parking prescribed by PEC 24 spaces Vii. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Primary/Secondary Residential South: Commercial Commercial Core 3, Heavy Service East: Mixed Use Commercial Core 3 West: Residential Primary/Secondary Residential VIII. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district lists "public or private schools" as a conditional use, allowed in this zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits are regulated by Chapter 12 -16 of the Vail Town Code. According to Section 12 -16 -1, Vail Town Code: 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 and evaluation 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 and 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 ensure that the location and 7 A. operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with 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. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that this use is important to the Town of Vail and will have a positive impact on the Town. These schools provide a valuable service to the members of the community. According to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, one of the goals is as follows:. 1.1 Vail should continue to maintaining a balance and recreational uses permanent resident. grow in a controlled environment, between residential, commercial to serve both the visitor and the Staff believes that one of the primary development objectives in the Town of Vail is to provide services to the residents of Vail, and believes that providing early education to the children of the community is an important function. The Town of Vail has established development objectives with regards to how development is to occur in the Town of Vail. Specifically, the purpose of the Town of Vail Development Standard Handbook states the following: it is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the Town of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. In addition, the Town of Vail has established Design Guidelines which specifically guide development in the Town of Vail. While enforcement of the Design Guidelines falls to the Design Review Board, as established by Chapter 3 -4, Design Review Board, of the Vail Town Code, staff believes that the objectives of the Design Guidelines are applicable in the review of this conditional use permit request, The objectives of design review are as follows: is • • I. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors. 2. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the Town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built -up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the Town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. 5. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The aesthetic impacts of placing modular trailers, in a residential neighborhood, on a site which is currently undisturbed, does not support the development objectives of the Town of Vail as outlined above. 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. According to the summary provided by the applicant, the Children's Garden of Learning will provide early learning services for 64 preschool age children, with two full -time directors, 4 toddler teachers, 2 assistants, 5 pre - school teachers, 1 office administrator, and two lunch aids that come for an hour at lunch. The hours of operation are limited to 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. Staff does not believe that there will be a negative impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, nor parks and recreation facilities. Because the use is temporary in nature, there is no long term effect on these criteria. In addition, the facility is fulfilling a need for early education in the Town of Vail. 40 With regards to other public facilities needs, this site has been identified as the potential site for a West Vail fire station. The location of the Children's Garden of Learning could impact the 9 timing of construction of the fire station on this site. Due to safety concerns and the area of the site proposed to be used by the Children's Garden of Learning, no construction could occur until the Children's Garden of Learning vacates this site. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant shall provide parking in accordance with Chapter 12 -10, Off- Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code. Parking for uses not specifically listed in Chapter 12 -10, Vail Town Code shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant has proposed 24 parking spaces for the Children's Garden of Learning. The Early Learning Center at the Middle Creels site was approved with 22 parking spaces. Staff believes that 24 spaces will be adequate to serve this facility. It should be noted that no parking will be allowed on Chamonix Road, Any additional needs for drop -off or temporary parking shall be accommodated on site. The applicant has provided area for snow storage which meets the Town regulations, which state that an area equaling 30% of the paved area be provided for snow storage. 40 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The Design Review Board has conceptually reviewed the plans for the Children's Garden of Learning. A summary of their comments is attached (Attachment D). Generally, the Design Review Board has concerns about the placement of these proposed temporary structures in this location. Specifically, they find that the proposal is not in compliance with the Design Guidelines and will have a negative effect upon the character of the area. Due to the high visibility of the site and the lack of any sort of buffer of the structures, neither the Design Review Board nor staff believes that the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood. The buildings lack the articulation, the materials, the landscaping, etc., to comply with the Design Guidelines, and the aesthetic effect on the character of the neighborhood will be negative. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: • 10 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional' use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it wouid be operated or maintained would 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 would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of a conditional use permit, to allow for a private school, located at Parcel B, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1st Filing, generally known as the "Hud Wirth" property_ (A full metes & bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development upon request)_ Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is not in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Primary /Secondary zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. This conditional use permit allows the applicant to provide early educational service to no more than 70 children and in accordance with the program as outlined in Attachment B. 2. The applicant is responsible for the revegetation of the site when the conditional use permit expires. Revegetation includes the removal of all improvements on the site, including, but not iimited to, the modular units, the access and parking area, the play area, etc. To ensure compliance with this condition, the applicant shall post a bond, based on an estimate as approved by the Town of Vail Department of Community Development_ 3. There shall be no parking or staging of any vehicles on the right -of -way or road in conjunction with this conditional use permit. 11 4. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all ob licensing requirements of the State of Colorado. 5. The applicant shall receive Town of Vail design review approval prior to the erection of any signage related to this conditional use permit. 6. This conditional use permit shall expire on January 1, 2005. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Letter of Request C. Reductions of the Plans D. Summary of Design Review Board comments E. Letter from Adjacent Owner F. Adjacents • 12 . ' AA ' s .. „ter..; °� � � L ���"� ��� •m� 1 s;s } 3 a7 4 T ; { � �, ✓ 'f w � . z, •. s § - �` '4 . J 4 SLR � 4 -.' l ' . .41 4 .* Attachment: A a n :+ kk4I 'T X� vrf r � r Vzi i r 4 . : x j} { _ -, A k «� q t �d,i rk i Attachment: B Z E H R E N AND ASSOCIATES, INC. January 27, 2003 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Children's Garden Learning Center Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission. The following written state addresses the submittal requirements as required in section 12-16-2, C. of the Town Code. • A. Describe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the area. The proposed use of the facility would be a temporary learning center for approximately 64 toddlers and preschool age children. The facility would consist of portable, modular units temporarily anchored to the site for a period of not greater than two years. The use is compatible with the underlying Primary- Secondary zoning classification and the surrounding residential uses in the area due to the limited size and hours of operation of the facility. B. Describe the relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. The proposed use is compatible with the development objectives of the town in that it provides for the temporary relocation and uninterrupted operation of an existing community facility that would facilitate construction of a new, improved facility in conjunction with a proposed affordable housing project. As the use is non - permanent, the only impact would be a short-term increase in peak hour traffic volumes along the southerly, commercial portions of Chamonix Road. C. Describe the effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING • INTERIORS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE The proposed use would have little or no effect on light and air, distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, or public facilities and public facilities needs. There would only be a slight increase seen in the amount of peak hour traffic entering and exiting the Lionshead parking structure. Because of the proposed drop -off and pick -up parking arrangement is south and east of the existing residential areas, there should be little impact on the residential neighborhoods north of the site. 0 P.O. Box 1976 - Avon, Colorado 81620 - (970) 949 -0257 - FAX (970) 949.1060 - e -mail: vailoffc @zehren.com - www.zehren.com ti E • D. Describe the 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 area. The proposed use would have little or no effect on congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety, automotive and pedestrian convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and the removal of snow from the streets and parking area. The existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns would remain as they currently exist. Adequate snow removal and storage areas have been indicated on the site plan. There may be a slight increase in the amount of weekday peak hour trips on the Chamonix Road, but it is hoped that employees and parents utilize the adjacent public transportation stops along the North Frontage Road. E. Describe 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. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is at a scale similar to that of the surrounding residential structures. As the proposed structure is non - permanent, it will have little effect on the character of the area. Every effort will be made to screen and buffer both the structure and play areas with the temporary storage of landscaping materials such as aspen and spruce trees and the use of windscreens on play area fencing. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the proposed conditional use. Sincerely, Timothy R. Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. Enclosures • �4 Children's Garden 149 N Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 January 27th, 2003 Town of Vail 75 S Frontage Rd. W Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Nina Timm Attn: Allison Ochs Dear Nina Timm, We want to take this time to thank you for all of your efforts you have put forth in behalf of the Children's Garden Preschool. We appreciate everything you have done. This is the letter per your request for the conditional use permit application: 1. Duration on site: June 4 2003- September 1 st, 2004 2. Why we are moving: Accommodate the construction of the employee housing and our facility. 3. Use of Building: We are a Non- Profit Preschool licensed by the State of Colorado. We follow strict guidelines that are set by the state. These are referred to as "Minimum Standards of Quality." This includes our licensing capacity for children ages 2 -51/2. We also go another step further and are accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. We have taken this step to ensure that we are offering the highest quality early care and education program as possible for the children of Eagle County. This requires us to abide by a set of high quality standards over and above what is required by the state of Colorado. • How the day functions: I am giving you a detailed description of our day at the Children's Garden of Learning: We are open Monday- Friday. We are not open on weekends, but we will have teachers coming to set up and clean the classrooms. They typically will only be there for an hour- two at the most. We are encouraging all teachers to utilize the free bus routes and to carpool_ This will be continually talked about as our move approaches. We are working with the TOV on securing parking passes for the teachers on the weekdays. 0 Our school day begins at 9:00 AM and ends at 4 :00 PM. We do offer extended hours for parents that need them. This means in the morning we open the school at 7:30 AM and in the evening we are open for children until 5 :30 PM We have as many as 65 children ages 2 -51/2 that attend each day. In the AM we typically have 5 -10 children that arrive before 9:00 AM. In the evening we have 18- 20 children that stay after 4:00 PM. These numbers are subject to change, as many of our parent's work in the ski industry, so they may need extended hours for the children once the mountain opens. Extended hours for the children make the child's day extremely long and we try to discourage it as much as possible! The staff at Children's Garden believes that seven hours of care and education is a maximum number of hours a child should be in a school regardless of age. With parking requirements on the Mt Bell site, we ask that parents in the AM and PM stagger their arrivals. We have drop off time from 8 :50 till 9:10 and pick up time from 4:00 PM till 4:10 PM. These times typically are our busiest. Day Schedule: Early Extended hours: 7:30 -9:00: Children have early morning snack and have quiet activities set up until 9:00 AM. 9:00 -9:45: Free play. We have the rooms set up with specific activities for each age group. They are free to choose and work together on activities. 9 :45: Circle time. Each room has all children get together and read stories and sing songs. 10:10 -15: Free choice time and snack. 10:45: Group time: Each child is placed in a small group with teacher and they explore different activities as a group. This is a time for teachers and children to extend learning and study a topic in depth. 11:30: Clean up time: Everyone works together to clean up room and set out mats for naptime. 11:45: Assistant read stories and children rest on gnats 1200 Lunch 12:30: Outside time. Explore playgrounds and utilize gross motor equipment 1:30: Outside clean up and get ready to go inside for naptime 1:45: Rest time 3 :30: Wake up: do jobs and get ready for snack 4 :00: Parents begin arriving for pick up. 4:15: Take children that are still at school for extended hours to one room. 4:15 -5:30: Extended hours- free play- gross motor activities in summer and will have activities for fall. L? 5:301- Teachers set up rooms and clean up from day. Typically there are early teachers that have also cleaned and set up their portions. 0 We do have monthly board meetings that will start at 6PM and last a couple hours. They are scheduled for the first Wednesday of each month. We also have teacher meetings that are weekly and the days change. They last from 5:45- 7:04 PM. We are closed over Thanksgiving, Thursday and Friday. We are closed on Christmas day and New Years Day. The weeks of Christmas and the New Year are usually half staffed. We send out a letter to the families and ask them if they are going to be using the week of Christmas, New Years. if they are they will pay for that week and a half. If they are not, the week and a half will be deducted from their tuition. This is an incentive for people that truly do not need the holiday time. If anyone has any questions, please have them contact me, Angela Mueller at 476 -5684. Sincerely, Angela M Mueller Director Children's Garden cc: Cheryl Joseph ARC • 3 N — O c� C 'v S H N 0= ' ctl O m L., O ' U T y � u +v Ln t7 ■ Q ME Ln W M 2 to E 0 U c s En R to u yoelly N L T N n C c 0 v w 0 M bo • E L J V t/y i V � S 1-760 i 4 l I ' I 1 ti 4 � S -J ` 1 G 0 of CD ' � l } 7930 4 W D Q g �z a� z� I � 4T S� � u� C� O il CO v W u u Ln I I G 60 .J G 4 I cz J a l A $ J � N V r L � � A PI �J i L AD } / \ / } Oil , Z: = A V3 \ ) \ rA } / \ / } L 0 .. d ro U II'1 7 OE L cli .J 0 o � o ti j V Ln 1 c W L CA 0 0 s CL a2 in 4J Ln m w rn 0 0 Q) J r � L L- /� cc T 0 Is CO u 1M A 0 _0 3 0 Attachment: D *TOWN Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 WWW. Ci. vail. co. us February 20, 2003 Tim Losa PO Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Angela Mueller Children's Garden Of Learning, Inc. 129 N. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81658 RE: Children's Garden of Learning at the Hud Wirth site Dear Tim and Angela, The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plans for the temporary relocation of the Children's Garden of Learning to the Hud 'Wirth site. The following were their comments and concerns: Due to the residential character of the neighborhood and the high visibility of the site, the modular trailers will need to be modified to blend with the character of the neighborhood and the site. As' with all development in the Town of Vail, the Children's Garden of Learning must comply with the Design Guidelines as outlined in Title 14 of the Vail Town Code. 2. The Design Review Board is willing to work with the Children's Garden of Learning in any way they can, including helping to evaluate sites which may be more suitable for modular trailers. However, regardless of the site, the modular trailers must be modified to comply with the Town of Vail Design Guidelines. Due to the concerns of the Design Review Board and the Town Council, the relocation of the Children's Garden of Learning to the Hud Wirth site is scheduled for Town Council on March 4, 2003. As a result, the conditional use ;permit request has been tabled to March 10, 2003. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970 -479 -2369. Sinc r ly, A son Oc s, AICP Planner it Town of Vail ! CC: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager �� RECYCLED PAPER 'ROM : Shit'firin FAX NO. : 97 04799265 Mar. -- Attachment: E J oseph of Billig MD 2309 Chamonix Lane Fail CO 81e57 (970) 478,8320 March 6, 2003 Allison Ochs Town of Vail Community Development Fax 479.5242 Dear Allison: I am a taxpayer and a registered Voter in Vail, Co. I live and work full time in Vail. am writing today to express my opposition to the proposed placement of temporary buildings on the Chamonix Road open space in West Vail. We who live here have worked hard to make the neighborhood an aesthetically pleasing environment, and temporary structures would obviously clash with the rest of the buildings in this area. There are a number of other sites available where the buildings can be placed in a less obvious and less obtrusive manner. Please share my letter with the Manning and Environmental Control Committee, as well as the Design Review Board. Thank you. SincereI Joseph O. Billig MD J Ok ur Stoever John & Karen Bergey John Webster 2427 Chamonix #3 9033 Meadow Hill Circle Postfach 83 Vail, CO 81657 Littleton, CO 80124 7500 St. Moritz 1 SWITZERLAND Attachment: F Joanne Glen Larry Powers Joseph & Fresia Vergara 2389 Chamonix Lane MOT 639 -4 Box 801 Post Office Box 938 CO 81657 Mendam, NJ 07954 Vail, CO 81658 Raymond Schneider Joseph Billig Nishizawa Shoji Co 3515 Tiffany Ridge Lane 2309 Chamonix Lane Post Office Box 1974 Cincinnati, OH 45241 Vail, CO 81657 Eagle, CO 81631 Maria Garcia West Vail Associates Ltd. Vail Service Stations LLC 147 Gutenberg 2121 N. Frontage Road W. #101 19 N. Grant Street MEXICO, DF 11590 Vail, CO 81657 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Town of Vail C. Hermann & K. Williams Robert Edelbeck 75 S. Frontage West Post Office Box 5592 Post Office Box 1147 Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81658 Avon, CO 81620 J. Danioth & A. Fisher Donald Hagans Thomas Corrigan Post Office Box 443 Post Office Box 4504 Post Office Box 33317 Vail, CO 81658 Vail, CO 81658 Avon, CO 81620 Michael Wellman Roger & Carol Bloom Stefan Schmid Post Office Box 952 1716 — 9 t ' Avenue 2447 Chamonix Lane 13 -C Vail, CO 81658 San Francisco, CA 94122 Vail, CO 81657 Karin Scheidegger Mark Yare Vinefera Inc. 2444 Chamonix Lane 2121 N. Frontage Road #181 Post Office Box 3819 Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81658 . Bert & Glenda Wong M. Mihlstin & R. Phan:ord D. & A. Schwart, S. & H. Friedman 40 Bertha Circle 10050 SW 55 Street 668 Flagstaff Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80906 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328 Cincinnati, OH 45215 David Ozersky Sands Michael Bonello 124 Quaterdeck Mall 2369 Chamonix Lane 10117 Creekwood Trail Marina Del Ray, CA 90292 Vail, CO 81657 Davisburg, MI 48350 Ok ur Stoever John & Karen Bergey John Webster 2427 Chamonix #3 9033 Meadow Hill Circle Postfach 83 Vail, CO 81657 Littleton, CO 80124 7500 St. Moritz 1 SWITZERLAND Ronald Amass Bruce & Janice Norring 2417 Chamonix Lane 2417 Chamonix Lane #9 Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 Jerry Kurtz Vail Gear Corp 2249 Chamonix #3 641 W. Lionshead Circle Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 First Bank of Vail Debir2 Holdings LLC Post Office Box 150097 c/o Victor A. Vlaplana Lakewood, CO 80215 750 B Street #2100 San Diego, CA 92101 E. Cooney & A. Brown Dwight & Julie Garbe 2289 Chamonix # 2 220 Camino de las Colinas Vail, CO 81657 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 David Golden Gina Tobey 3290 Northside Parkway #870 1630 Ogden Street Atlanta, GA 30327 Denver, CO 80218 Greg & Chris Moffet Jack Sanders 2958 S. Frontage Road #B15 730 Hobbs Road Vail, CO 81657 Jefferson City, MO 65109 Sheila Fitzpatrick Vryllin Vukonich Post Office Box 5102 701 Harlan Street #E56 Vail, CO 81658 Lakewood. CO 80214 Mary Zarba Donald & Patricia Smith 2427 Chamonix Lane 6841 Woodson Vail, CO 81657 Overland Park, KS 66204 Hugh Schmidt Post Office Box 1455 Vail, CO 81658 Charles H. Stone Family LP Post Office Box 1392 Vail, CO 81658 Lucille Ruemmler Trust 10646 Thornton Road Stockton, CA 95209 is Warren, Laura & Christopher Garbe 2289 Chamonix # 3 Vail, CO 81657 Steve & Alexandra Holdstock Post Office Box 1542 Vail, CO 81658 Melinda Harrington 1295 Lupine Way Golden, CO 80401 R. White & L. Asmund Post Office Box 5712 Vail, CO 81658 Brett & James Malin 508 Linden Birmingham, MI 48009 • 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 February 24, 2003, at 2:010 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -6D -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code to allow for a private school, located at Parcel B, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 'I Filing. (A full metes & bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development upon request). Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs 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 requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 37, to allow for the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5'" Filing. Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier Planner: George Ruther A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest /Matt Gennett A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12 -3 -3: Appeals, Vail Town Code, to amend the 10 -day appeal and call -up of administrative, Design Review Board, and Planning and Environmental Commission actions & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Matt Mire Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. - Community Development Department �U Published February 7, 2603 in the Vail Daily. /- Q I TOWN OF PAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: 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 2 " 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 2 " Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs SUMMARY The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Company,. Inc. is requesting a worksession to present the proposal for a mixed use hotel, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. and 13 Vail Rd. / Lots 9A -9C, Vail Village 2 " Filing. As this is a worksession, there is no staff recommendation at this time. The purpose of today's worksession is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission with an introduction to the project; identify potential issues; discuss issues identified by the Town of Vail staff; and provide direction to the applicant. The applicant is proposing to make modifications to the plans which have an impact on the review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The application was originally scheduled for a final review. However, due to the changes proposed, staff has instead scheduled the proposal as a worksession. At this time, the applicant is proposing to return to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a final review on April 14, 2003. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Nicollet Island Development Company, Inc., has submitted applications to the Town of Vail for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, to allow for the construction of mixed use hotel; for conditional use permits to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club and 33 Type III Employee Housing Units; and for a rezoning of 28 S. Frontage Rd. f Lot 9A, Vail Village 2 " Filing from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation. The request will facilitate the construction of a Four Seasons Resort, which includes 119 hotel rooms, 20 condominiums, 20 fractional fee units, 33 employee housing units, a restaurant and bar, limited retail space, conference and meeting space, and a spa/health club. The applicant's Program Analysis has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant is proposing is a deviation from the maximum building height. The maximum building height in the Public Accommodation zone district is 48 ft. The maximum height proposed is 90.5 ft. According to the applicant, all other development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation zone district will be met, including density, gross residential floor area, site coverage, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading. There are some encroachments into the required 20 ft. setback, as prescribed by the Public Accommodation zone district. Section 12 -7A -6: Setbacks, Vail Town Code, allows the Planning and Environmental Commission to grant variations to the setback requirements. These variations are discussed in further detail in Section VI of this memorandum. A reduced set of plans have been attached for reference (Attachment B). III. BACKGROUND The proposal for the Four Seasons Resort includes two development sites: the existing Chateau at Vail, located at 13 Vail Road / Lots 9A -9C, Vail Village 2nd Filing and the existing Alpine Amoco Service Station, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd. / Lot 9A, Vail Village 2 d Filing. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment C). The underlying zoning on the Chateau at Vail development site is Public Accommodation (Attachment D). The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the northern portion of the site as "Resort Accommodation and Services" and the southern portion of the site as "Transition " (Attachment E). The Town of Vail Land Use Plan defines these as follows: Resort Accommodation and Services This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short term visitor to the area. Primary uses Jnclude hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1 -70, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses. Transition The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging, and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses_ This designation would include the right -of -way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. t The existing Chateau at Vail contains 120 hotel rooms at 280 square feet each. In 2000, an application was submitted to the Town of Vail for a demolition of the existing Chateau at Vail, and for the construction of a new mixed -use hotel. The application included the establishment of a new Special Development District, and conditional use permits to allow for a fractional fee club and Type III employee housing units. Ordinance No 14, Series of 2001, approved the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, and adopted a development plan in accordance with Chapter 12 -9A, of the Vail Town Code. Ordinance No. 14 has been attached for reference (Attachment F). Lot 9A, Vail Village 2n Filing is the site of the Alpine Amoco Service Station. The site is currently zoned Heavy Service and has a land use designation of "Resort Accommodations and Services" (see above.) In October of 2001, the owner of the Alpine Amoco appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission in a worksession format to discuss possible amendments to the Heavy Service zone district which would have allowed redevelopment of the site with the addition of multiple family dwelling units atop the service station. No formal action was taken on the proposal, and all applications have subsequently been withdrawn_ 40 IV. SITE ANALYSIS Current Zoning: Public Accommodation, Heavy Service Land Use Plan Designation: Resort Accommodation and Services, Transition Current Land Use: Hotel, Service Station Development Standard Allowed Lot Area: Min. of 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area and a min. of 30 feet of frontage. Setbacks: Front: 20 feet Sides: 20 feet Rear: 20 feet *See Section 12 -7A -6 for discretion granted to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the criteria. Building Height: 45 ft. for flat or mansard roofs and 48 ft. for sloping roofs. Density: Max. of 25 units /acre. GRFA: Up to 150 sq. ft. for each 100 sq. ft. of buildable site area. Site Coverage: Not to exceed 65% of the total site area. Landscape Area: Min. of 30% of the total site. Parking: Accommodation units: 0.4 spaces /unit, plus 0.1 space /each 100 sq. ft. of GRFA with a max. of 1.0 spaces /unit. Dwelling Unit: If GRFA is 500 sq. ft. or less: 1.5 spaces /unit. If GRFA is over 500 sq. ft. up to 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces/unit. If GRFA is 2,000 sq. ft. or more /dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces/unit. Eating and Drinking Establishments: 1 spaeef120 sq. ft. of seating floor area. Retail Stores, Personal Services, and Repair Shops: 1 space /each 300 sq. ft. of net floor area. Recreational Facilities, Public or Private (day spa): Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. V VI. The Zoning Analysis of the Four Seasons Resort has been attached for reference (Attachment G). The analysis compares the Public Accommodation zone district development standards with the 2001 Special Development District No. 36 approval and the Four Seasons Resort proposal. SURROUNDING LAND USES DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of this worksession meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. However, staff has identified the following issues that we believe should be discussed. The issues include the following: A. Compliance with applicable master plans and the design guidelines The Community Development staff has contracted with Jeff Winston, of Winston Associates, to provide an analysis of this project with regards to the applicable master plans and design guidelines. His analysis is attached for reference (Attachment H). The analysis provides additional recommendations with regards to the pedestrian connection to West Meadow Drive, including expanding the sidewalks into plazas where they meet the street sidewalk. In addition, the analysis recommends additional Land Use Zoning North: Municipal General Use South: Residential Two - Family Residential High Density Multiple Family Residential East: Mixed Use Special Development District No. 21 Residential Public Accommodation West: Residential High Density Multiple Family Residential DISCUSSION ISSUES The purpose of this worksession meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. However, staff has identified the following issues that we believe should be discussed. The issues include the following: A. Compliance with applicable master plans and the design guidelines The Community Development staff has contracted with Jeff Winston, of Winston Associates, to provide an analysis of this project with regards to the applicable master plans and design guidelines. His analysis is attached for reference (Attachment H). The analysis provides additional recommendations with regards to the pedestrian connection to West Meadow Drive, including expanding the sidewalks into plazas where they meet the street sidewalk. In addition, the analysis recommends additional consideration to the roof massing as it transitions to the Scorpio and the Alphorn. Finally, the analysis discusses additional concerns with regards to the massing of the roof, especially with regards to the mass of individual roof planes. With regards to the analysis provided by Jeff Winston, of Winston Associates, is there any additional information that the Planning and Environmental Commission would like to receive prior to making a final recommendation of the proposal? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that as proposed, the application is in general compliance with the applicable master plans and the design guidelines? B. Proposed Setbacks In the PA District, the minimum setback shall be 20 feet on all sides. The applicant is proposing to maintain the 20 ft. above grade setbacks along Frontage Rd., Vail Rd., and the west side. The applicant is proposing an 18 f1. setback at the property line adjacent to the 9 Vail Road property. In addition, along West Meadow Dr., the applicant is proposing to encroach 10 ft. into the setback with the roof overhang. Roof overhangs can encroach 4 ft. into a required setback. In addition to the deviations to the above grade setbacks, the applicant is proposing to encroach below grade. The Public Accommodation zone district allows for parking and i loading to occur underground in the front setback. However, the proposal ! includes encroachments into the 20 ft. setbacks underground on the Frontage Rd.,Vail Rd., west side, and east side. These encroachments include storage areas and parking. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board, variations to the setback standards may be approved, subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria; A_ Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. C_ Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setbacks standards. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that above -grade encroachments into the 20 ft. setback meet the criteria outlined by Section 12 -7A -6: Setbacks, Vail Town Code? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the below - grade encroachments into the 20 ft. setback meet the criteria outlined by Section 12 -7A -6: Setbacks, Vail Town Code? Are any changes suggested? C. Mitigation of Development Impacts Pursuant to Section 12- 7A -14, Mitigation of Development Impacts, Vail Town Code, Property ownersldevelopers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off - site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading /delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this Section is to only require mitigation for large -scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off -site impacts. In addition, Section 12 -9A -9: Development Standards, Vail Town Code, states the following: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of this Article. As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the planning process for Special Development District proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report- This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report 6 were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of commercial - use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.80) of the new employees are provided housing and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Four Seasons Resort special development district does not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district. However, the Vail Plaza Hotel West, which did not exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district, and the 30% figure was required. Staff has provided the employee generation calculations for the Four Seasons Resort. The analysis provides the following: Bottom of Range Calculations a) Retail /Service Commercial = 2,402 sq. ft. @ (511000 sq. ft.) - 12.01 employees b) Health Club = 14,416 sq. ft. @ (111000 sq. ft.) = 14.42 employees C) Restaurant/Kitchen = - 12,155 sq. ft. @ (511000 sq. ft.) 60.46 employees 7 d) Conference Center 11,726 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 11.7 employees e) Lodging = 119 units @ (.25 /unit) = 29.75 employees f) Multiple - Family Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) - 16 employees 144.34 employees - 85 existing employees 59.34 employees Middle of Range Calculations a) Retail /Service Commercial 229.57 employees - 85 existing employees 144.57 employees Top of Range Calculations a) Retail /Service Commercial = 2,402 sq. ft. @ (811000 sq. ft.) = 19.2 employees b) Health Club = 14,416 sq. ft. @ (1.5 /1000 sq. ft.) = 21.6 employees 40 • • 0 2,402 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.) = 15.6 employees b) Health Club = 14,416 sq. ft. @ (1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 18.02 employees C) Restaurant/Kitchen = 12,155 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 79 employees d) Conference Center = 11,726 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) = 11.7 employees e) Lodging = 119 units @ (.75 /unit) = 89.25 employees f) Multiple - Family Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) = 16 employees 229.57 employees - 85 existing employees 144.57 employees Top of Range Calculations a) Retail /Service Commercial = 2,402 sq. ft. @ (811000 sq. ft.) = 19.2 employees b) Health Club = 14,416 sq. ft. @ (1.5 /1000 sq. ft.) = 21.6 employees 40 • • 0 C) Restaurant/Kitchen = 12,155 sq. ft. @ (8 /1400 sq. ft.) 97.14 employees d) Conference Center = 11,726 sq. ft. @ (1/1000 sq. ft.) _ 11.7 employees e) Lodging = 119 units @ (1.25 /unit) = 148.75 employees f) Multiple- Family Units = 40 units @ (.4 /unit) — 16 employees 15% Calculation Bottom Middle Top 41 30% Calculation Bottom Middle Top • 314.39 employees - 85 existing employees 229.39 employees Employees Beds Required 59.34 8.9 144.57 21.68 229.39 34.4 59,34 17.8 144.57 433 229.39 68.8 According to the calculations above, 34 employee housing units are required by the top of the range and the 30% requirement. Staff recommends one additional employee housing unit be provided. The applicant is proposing significant off -site improvements as part of the mitigation of development impacts. The off -site improvements include Frontage Road improvements from the eastern property line of the First Bank Building to the roundabout. Various traffic studies and counts have been provided (Attachment 1). The improvements include providing turn lanes, stacking areas, and sidewalk improvements. The Frontage Road configuration will have an impact on the western entry into the roundabout. The design must be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to final approval and a consultant is in the process of reviewing the proposal. In addition, the applicant is proposing a sidewalk connection to the bus stop in front of the Weststar Bank Building. The applicant is not proposing this walk to be heated. Staff believes that this walkway shall be heated by the applicant. Other off -site improvements include a heated sidewalk along South Frontage Road adjacent to the applicant's property, West Meadow Drive sidewalk improvements, sidewalk improvements along Vail Road adjacent to the applicant's property, and the provision of a location for public art_ A memo from the Department of Public Works has been attached which further outlines the requirements for the off -site improvements (Attachment J). 0 Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the applicant has adequately provided for employee housing to meet the need generated by the development? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the off -site improvements, as proposed, adequately mitigate the development impacts of the proposal? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that additional off -site improvements are required? D. Height The Public Accommodation zone district prescribes the maximum height of buildings to be no greater than 48 ft. for a sloping roof. The maximum building height approved by Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, is 73.5 ft. at its highest ridge, adjacent to South Frontage Road, As proposed, the maximum height is 90.5 ft., a deviation of 42.5 ft. Staff believes that additional height is appropriate along the South Frontage Road. However, staff believes that the 48 ft. height limit must be maintained along West Meadow Drive. As currently proposed, the roof ridge heights along West Meadow Drive include heights over 48 ft. and up to 60 ft. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the maximum height as proposed at 90.5 ft. is appropriate for this location? Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that height in excess of 48 ft. along West Meadow Drive is appropriate? E. Parking at 9 Vail 'Road The situation regarding the surface parking at 9 Vail Road has been identified as an issue by staff. The current driveway for 9 Vail Road is located on the applicant's property. The current proposal is to relocate the parking to West Meadow Drive at the existing curb cut. However, any relocation of parking spaces cannot render 9 Vail Road non- conforming without variances being approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff recommends the relocation of 2 parking spaces off of Meadow Drive, and the remainder of the spaces be provided in the proposed parking structures. Prior to final approval, this issue must be resolved. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the proposed solution to the parking situation for 9 Vail Road is appropriate? Are there any other suggestions to deal with the parking at 9 Vail Road? F. Spa Parking The Planning and Environmental Commission determines the parking requirement for uses not specifically listed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing approximately 6,082 sq. ft. of 10 spa. Half of the treatments provided by the spa shall be open to the general public, while the remaining half will be available to hotel guests only. Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code requires 2.3 spaces per 1000 square feet of net floor area for "personal services ". Using this requirement as a guide, the spa area would require 14 spaces. With only half open to the public, 7 spaces would be required for the spa. As currently proposed and with all uses considered, the total parking requirement for the Four Seasons Resort is 205 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed 215 spaces. Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the above - provided analysis is acceptable for the parking requirement for the spa use? G. Conditional Use Permits The applicant is requesting conditional use permits for the Fractional Fee Club and the Type III Employee Housing Units. The applicant's response to the conditional use permit criteria has been attached for reference (Attachment K). The applicant is proposing to meet the requirements for a conditional use permit for the 33 employee housing units. Each unit meets the minimum square footage requirement, and parking and storage have been provided.. In addition, the applicant is proposing conditional use permit for a fractional fee club. The interval ownership proposed is 9 owners per unit. The fractional fee club shall be controlled by the front desk operation of the hotel. Is there any additional information the Planning and Environmental Commission would like to receive prior to final review of the conditional use permits for the employee housing units and the fractional fee club? VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The following section of this memorandum is included to provide the applicant, community, staff, and Commission with an advanced understanding of the criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final decision on the proposed applications. A. Major Amendment to a Special Development District 12 -9A -8: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been Is achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate 11 environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, 40 identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And /4r Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. 40 H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. B. Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Findings A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 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. 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. 12 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The following additional criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12-16-6 of this Chapter. A. Uses and Criteria: 8. Time -Share Estate, Fractional Fee, Fractional Fee Club, Or Time -Share License Proposal: Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time -share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the 13 zoning code and the purposes of the Public Accommodation zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. C. Zone District Boundary Amendment Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all 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. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents; and 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. 14 • 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary 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 adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; 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. 9 INIII ATTACHMENTS A. Program Analysis B. Reductions of Plans C. Vicinity Map D. Zoning Map E. Land Use Map F. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001 G. Zoning Analysis H. Analysis by Winston Associates I, Traffic Studies J. Memo from Public Works K. Conditional Use Permit Response 1161 Pagel Attachment: A Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site IEHU Analysis - 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/2012003 Parkinp Totals Dwelling Units Units Space/Unit Total Spaces Total Dwelling Units 20.00 1.4 28.00 Frational Fee Units Urits Space /Unit Total Spaces Total Fractional Fee Units 20.00 0.70 14.00 Accommodation Units Keys Space /Key Total Spaces Total Accommodation Units 119.00 0.7 83.30 Employee Housing Units Units Soace/Unit Total Spaces Total Employee Housing Units 3300 1.4 46.20 Restaurant/Bar Area AreaJSoace Total Spaces Total Restaurant/Bar 5,293.00 250 21.17 Retail Areas Area Area/Space Total Spaces Total Retail 2,402.0 250 9.61 Spa Area Area/Soace Total Spaces Mulitplier" Total Spaces Total Spa Facilities 6,082.0 330.00 18.43 0.5 9.22 maximum Of 112 of total treatment available by appointment only Healthclub Area Area/SAace Total Spaces Total Healthclub Facilities 8,334.0 0.00 0.00 Parkina Totals Total Spaces Total Dwelling Units 28.00 Total Fractional Fee Units 14.00 Total Accommodation Units 83.30 Total Employee Housing Units 46.20 Restaurant/Bar 21.17 Total Retail 9.61 Total Spa Facilities 92 Total Healthclub Facilities 0.0 Total Parking Required 211.50 Parking Provided Full size Com ac Valet Accessible Total Spaces Level Minus One (142) 48 8 35 0 91 Level Minus Two 132 106 18 0 0 124 Total Parking Provided 154 26 35 0 215 Total % 71.6% 12.1% 16.3 % 0.0 % 100.0% Employee Housing Generation Area/Units Calc. Ranae Multiplier Employees Total Dwelling Units 18.0 Standard 0.40 7.20 Total Fractional Fee Units 22.0 Standard 0.40 8.80 Total Accommodation Units 119.0 Top 1.25 148.75 Total Restaurant/Bar 5,293.0 Top 125.00 42.34 Total Conference Facilities 11,726.0 Top 1,000.00 11.73 Main Kitchen 6,862.0 Top 125.00 54.90 Total Retail 2,402.0 Top 125 19.22 Total Spa Facilities 6,082.0 Top 666.67 9.12 Pagel Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 001348.00 Program Analysis Total Healthclub Facilities 8,334.0, TOP 666.67 12.50 "Total Employees 314.56 Existing Employees Employees Existing Employees (Chateau Vail) 79.0 Existin4 Employees (alpine Standard)) 6.0 Total Existing Employees 85.0 New Employees Employees Total Employees 314.6 Total Existmg Employees 8S.0 Total New Employees 229.6 New Beds Required 30% 68.9 Em to ee Housin Beds Provided 66.0 Difference -2.9 New Beds Required 15% 34.4 Employee Housin Beds provided 66.0 Difference 31.6 • Parking /EHU Analysis 03/20/2003 Page2 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 001348.00 Total Healthclub Facilities Total Employees Existing Employees Existing Employees (Chateau Vail) Existing Employees (Alpine Standard)) Total Existing Employees New Employees Total Employees Total Existinq Employees Total New Employees New Beds Required Employee Housing (Beds) Provided Difference New Beds Required Emp_loyee'Housino (Beds) Provided Difference Chateau Vail Site Program Analysis 8,334.0 TOO 666.67 30% 15% Employees 79.0 6_0 85.0 Empbyees 314.6 85.0 229.6 68.9 66.0 -2.9 34.4 66.0 31.6 Parking /EHU Analysis 03120/2003 12.50 314.56 0 0 Paget Zi?hren and Associates, Inc. 001348.00 Level Minus Two (132) Gross Square Footage CJ 0 Parking Full Size (9'x18' min,) Compact (8'x16' min.) Valet (8'x16' min.) Accessible (8'x12' min.) Sub -Total Parking. Spaces Parking Area Sub- Total Parking Area Storage Lockers Sub -Total Storage Other Areas Corridor (public) Stair (exit core) Elevator (care) Maid MechanicaVElectrical Room Shaft (mechanical) Corridor (service) Sub -Total Other Areas Floor Summary Sub- Total Parking Area Sub -Total Storage Sub -Total Other Areas Total Net Areas Gross/Net Area 49,659.0 Spaces 106 18 0 0 124 Area 44,854.0 Area 1,844 Area 306.0 406.0 342.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 1,054.0 Area 44,854.0 1,844.0 1 ,054.0 47,752.0 0.96 Chateau Vail Site Program Analysis Units 18 Area/Unit 102 Level 132 03/20/2003 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 4 42 , 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/20/2003 Level Minus One (142) Gross Square Footage 71,072.0 Restaurant/Bar Area Pool Bar 194.0 Sub -Total Restaurant/Bar 194.0 F& B Area Pool Bar Pantry 297.0 Area Corridor 1,108.0 Beauty Salon 1,038.0 Treatment 1 1,658.0 Treatment 2 2,278,D Sub -Total Spa 6,082.0 Healthclub Area Lobby 1,199,0 Men's FaciRies 1,343.0 Women's Facilities 2,008.0 Grotto /Pool 966.0 Cardio 1,004.0 Yoga/Spinning 381.0 Storage 1,153.0 Office 280.0 Sub -Total Healthclub 8,334.0 Retail Areas Area HOtet Sundries 663.0 Gallery Retail 607.0 Sub -Total Retail Areas 1,270.0 Childrens's Activities Area Kid Center 1.360.0 Younq Adult 1,872.0 Sub - Total Children's Activities 3,232.0 Employee Storage 717 Storage Lockers Area Units Area/Unit Sub -Total Storage 2,166.0 14.0 154.7 Parking Spaces Full Size (9'x18' min.) 48 Compact (8'x16' min.) 8 Valet (8'x16' min.) 35 Accessible (8'x12' min.) 0 Sub -Total Parking Spaces 91 Page I Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 001348.00 Program Analysis is Parking Area Area Sub- Total Parking Area 35,229.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 2,193.0 Stair (exit core) 534.0 Elevator (core) 890.0 Maid 0.0 MechanicaVElectrical Room 5,292.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Corridor (service! 996.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 9,905.0 Floor Summary Area Sub -Total RestaurantiBar 194.0 Pool Bar Pantry 297.0 Sub -Total Spa 6,062.0 Sub -Total Healthclub 8,334.0 Sub -Total Children's Activities 3,232.0 Employee Storage 717.0 Sub -Total Storage 2,166.0 Sub- Total 'Parking Area 35,229.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 9,905.0 Total Net Area 66,156.0 Gross/Net Ratio 0.93 0 Level 142 03/2012003 Page 2 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 001348.00 Program Analysis Level Zero (152) Cross Square Footage 78,882.0 Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 3 2,358 4 4 Fractiona4 Fee Unit 2 2,486 4 4 Fractionai Fee Unit 1 2,128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 6,972.0 11 11 Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Keys Deck Area King Rooms 3,724,0 532.0 7.0 0.0 Double /Double Rooms 1,647.0 549.0 3.0 4.0 Executive Suites 2,551,0 850.3 3.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 1,173.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Presidential Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 9,095.0 1,931.3 14.0 0.4 Employee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 3,901.0 300.1 13.0 26.0 Conference Facilities Area Ballroom 3,614,0 Banquet Room 1,971.0 Board Room 541.0 Meeting Room 1 566.0 Meeting Room 2 860.0 Pre - Function 4,174.0 Sub -Total Conference Faclities 11,726.0 Restaurant/Bar Area Private [lining 503.00 All Day Restaurant 2,422.00 Sub -Total Restaurant/Bar 2,925.00 F& B Area Main Kitchen 6,862.0 Parking Area Parking Deck /Ramp 2,717.0 Back of House Area Linen 269.0 Human Resources 1,354.0 Security 495.0 Staff Facilities 3,140.0 Housekeeping 2,709.0 Laundry 2,648.0 Banquet Pantry 359.0 Banquet Storage 1,183.0 Sub -Total Back of House 12,157.0 Level 152 03/20/2003 • Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 152 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/24/2003 Other Areas Public Restrooms Lobby Coat Check Corridor (public) Stair (exit core) Elevator (core) Maid MechanicaVElectrical Room Shaft (mechanical) Corridor (serval Sub -Total Other Areas • • Floor Summary Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units Sub -Total Accommodation Units Sub -Total Employee Housing Sub -Total Conference Faclities Sub -Total Restaurant/Bar Main Kitchen Parking Deck/Ramp Sub -Total Back of House Sub -Total Other Areas #REF! Total Net Area Gross/Net Ratio Area 2,268.0 556.0 218.0 3,265.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.220.0 11,527.0 Area 6,972.0 9,095.0 3,901.0 11 ,726.0 2,925.0 6,862.0 2,717.0 12,157.0 11,527.0 11.527.0 79,409.0 1.01 Page 2 Zehren and Associates, Inc. 001348.00 Chateau Vai€ Site Program Analysis Level 4 62" 03/20/2003 Level One (162) Grass Square Footage 35,103.0 FractionaC Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 6 2,538 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 5 2,486 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 4 2,128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 7,152 11 11 Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Keys Deck Area King Rooms 6,384.0 532.0 12.0 0.0 Double /Double Rooms 1,647.0 549.0 3.0 0.0 Executive Suites 2,551.0 850.3 3.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 1,117.0 1,117.0 1.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Presidential Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 11,699.0 19.0 0.0 Employee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 4,801.0 300.1 16.0 32.0 Loading /Parking Ramp 0.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 3,286.0 Stair (exit core) 1,256.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 283.0 MechanicaVEiectrical Room 0.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Corridor (service) 2,696.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 7,521.0 Floor Sum Area Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 7,152.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 11,699.0 Sub -Total Employee Housing 4,801.0 Loading/Parking Ramp 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 7,521.0 Total Net Area 31,173.0 Gross/Net Ratio 0.89 Page 1 • Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 172 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/2012003 Level Two (172) Cross Square Footage 77,206.0 Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 10 1,648 2 2 Fractional Fee Unit 9 2,538 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 8 2,486 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 7 2.128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 8,800 13 13 Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Keys Deck Area King Rooms 9,045.0 532.1 17.0 0.0 Double /Double Rooms 2,745.0 549.0 5.0 0.0 Executive Suites 2,551.0 850.3 3.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 1,173.0 1,173.0 1.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0 -0 0.0 Presidential Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 15,514.0 26.0 0.0 Employee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 Restaurant/Bar Area Lobby Lounge 988 Apres Ski Bar 803 Library 603 Sub -Total Restaurant/Bar 2,174 Public Areas Area Lobby 0.0 Entry +Promenade 0.0 Sub -Total Public Areas 0.0 Retail Areas Area Retail 1 2,402.0 Sub -Total Retail Areas 2,402.0 Ernplayee /Adminstration Areas Area Sub -Total Administration 1,811.0 Structural Ramo /Deck Area Lobby Terrace 848.0 Porte- Cochere (Structural Deck) 15.575.0 Sub -Total Structural Ramp /Deck 16,423.0 Parkin Areas Area Loa6nq Dock 5,856.0 Sub -Total Parking Areas 5,856.0 • Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 472 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/20/2003 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 0.0 Stair (exit core) 0.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 0.0 MechanicaVElectrical Room 0,0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Corridor (service) 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 floor Summary Area Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 8,800.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 15,514.0 Sub -Total Employee Housing 0.0 Sub -Total Restaurant(Bar 2,174.0 Sub -Total Public Areas 0.0 Sub -Total Retail Areas 2,402.0 Sub -Total Administration 1,811.0 Sub -Total Structural Ramp/Deck 16,423.0 Sub -Total Parking Areas 5,856.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0.0 Total Net Area 52,980.0 Gross/Net Ratio 0.69 r_1 Page 2 Gross /Net Ratio 0.67 • Level 182 03/20/2003 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 001348.00 Program Analysis Level Three 182.0 Gross Square Footage 43,442.0 Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 14 2,128 3 3 Fractional Fee Unit 13 2,538 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 12 2,486 4 4 Fractional Fee Unit 11 2,128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 9,280 14 14 Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Keys Deck Area King Rooms 8,513.0 532.1 16.0 OA Double /Double Rooms 2,745.0 549.0 5.0 0.0 Executive Suites 2,551.0 850.3 3.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 2,158 -0 1,079.0 2.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 Presidential Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 15,967.0 26 -0 0.0 Empicyee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Employee /Adminstration Areas Area Repair and Maintenance 3,716.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 0.0 Stair (exit core) 0.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 0.0 Mechanical /Electrical Room 0.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Corridor (service) 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Floor Summary Area Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 9,280.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 15,967.0 Sub -Total Employee Housing 0 -0 Repair and Maintenance 3,716.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Total Net Area 28,963.0 Gross /Net Ratio 0.67 • Level 182 03/20/2003 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Leve1192' 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/20/2003 Level Four (192) Gross Square Footage 49,119.0 Dwelling Units Area Bedrooms Baths Unit 3 (Flat) 3,014.0 4 4.5 Unit 2 (Flat) 2,566.0 3 4.0 Unit 1 (Flat) 3 4 5_0 Sub -Total Dwelling Units 8,736.0 11.0 13.5 Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 18 1,653 2 2 Fractional Fee Unit 17 1,785 2 2 Fractional Fee Unit 16 2,128 3 3 Fractional Fee Unit 15 2.128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 5,566 7 7 Accommodation Units Area Unit Area Keys Deck Area King Rooms 7,447.0 531.9 14.0 0.0 Double/Double Rooms 2,196.0 549.0 4.0 0.0 Executive Suites 1,749.0 874.5 2.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 1,173.0 586.5 2.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 2,135.0 2,135.0 1.0 0.0 Presidential Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 14,700.0 23.0 0.0 Employee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 600.0 300.0 2.0 4.0 Emolovee/Adminstration Areas Area Sub -Total Administration 3,541.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 0.0 Stair (exit core) 0.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 0.0 Mechanical/Electrical Room 0.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Floor Summary Area Sub -Total Dwelling Units 8,736.0 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 5,566.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 10,016.0 Sub -Total Employee Housing 600.0 Sub -Total Administration 3,541.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Total Net Area 28,459.0 Gross/Net Ratio 0.6 0 Page 1 C Level 202 03/20/2003 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 001348.00 Program Analysis Level Five 202 Gross Square Footage 41,504.0 Dwelling Units Area Bedrooms Baths Unit 7 (Flat) 3,543.0 4 5.0 Unit 6 (Flat) 3,014.0 4 4.5 Unit 5 (Flat) 2,566.0 3 4.0 Unit 4 (Flat) 3,156.0 4 5.0 Sub -Total Dwelling Units 12,279.0 15.0 18.5 Fractional Fee Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 22 1,663 2 2 Fractional Fee Unit 21 1,785 2 2 Fractional Fee Unit 20 2,128 3 3 Fractional Fee Unit 19 2.128 3 3 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 7,694 10 10 Accommodation Unils Area Unit Are Keys Deck Area King Rooms 3,724.0 532.0 7.0 0.0 Double /Double Rooms 549.0 549.0 1.0 0.0 Executive Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 One Bedroom Suites 2,189.0 1,094.5 2.0 0.0 Two Bedroom Suites 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Presidgtntial Suites 3,554.0 3.554.0 1.0 0.0 Sub -Total Accommodation Units 10,016.0 11.0 0.0 Employee Housing Units Area Unit Area Units Beds Sub -Total Employee Housing 600.0 300.0 2.0 4.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 0.0 Stair (exit core) 0.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 0.0 Mechanical /Electrical Room 0.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Floor Summary Area Sub -Total Dwelling Units 12,279.0 Sub -Total Fractional Fee Units 7,694.0 Su b-Tot @1 Other Areas 0.0 Total Net Area 19,973.0 Gross /Net Ratio 0.48 C Level 202 03/20/2003 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site LeveP212 001348.00 Program Analysis 03/20/2003 Level Six (212) Gross Square Footage 22,564.0 Dwelling Units. Area Bedrooms Baths Unit 13 (Flat) 2,910.0 4 4.5 Unit 12 (Flat) 3,295.0 4 4.5 Unit 11 (Flat) 2,576.0 3 4.0 Unit 10 (Flat) 2,712.0 2 3.0 Unit 9 (Flat) 2,649.0 3 4.0 Unit 8 (Flat) 2,771.0 3 4_0 Sub -Total Dwelling Units 16,913.0 19.0 24.0 Other Areas Area Corridor (public) 0.0 Stair (exit core) 0.0 Elevator (core) 0.0 Maid 0.0 Mechanical/Electrical Room 0.0 Shaft (mechanical) 0.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Floor Summary Area Sub -Total Dwelling Units 16,913.0 Sub -Total Other Areas 0.0 Total Net Area 16,913.0 Gross/Net Ratio 0.75 0 Page 1 Zbhren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site Level 222 001348.00 Program Analysis 03120/2003 Level Seven (222) Gross Square Footage Dwellings Units Unit 18 (Flat) Unit 17 (Flat) Unit 16 (Flat) Unit 15 (Flat) Unit 14 (Flat) Sub -Total Dwelling Units • 0 Other Areas Corridor (public) Stair (exit core) Elevator (core) Maid Mechanical/Electrical Room Shaft (mechanical) Sub -Total Other Areas Floor Summary Sub -Total Dwelling Units Sub -Total Other Areas Total Net Area Gross/Net Ratio ' Estimated 19,568.0 Area Bedrooms Baths 4,103.0 4 5.0 2,413.0 3 3.5 2,576.0 3 4.0 1,992.0 2 2.5 4,433.0 4 5 15,517.0 16.0 20.0 A_ rea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 Area 15,517.0 0.0 15,517.0 0.79 Page 1 Zehren and Associates, Inc. Chateau Vail Site 20021471.00 Program Analysis Program Totals Dwelling Units Area Bedrooms Baths Unit 18 (Fiat) 4,103.0 4.0 5.0 Unit 17 (Flat) 2,413.0 3.0 3.5 Unit 16 (Flat) 2,576.0 3.0 4.0 Unit 15 (Flat) 1,992.0 2,0 2.5 Unit 14 (Flat) 4,433.0 4.0 5.0 Unit 13 {Flat) 2,910.0 4.0 4.5 Unit 12 (Flat) 3,295.0 4.0 4.5 Unit 11 (Flat) 2,576.0 3.0 4.0 Unit 10 (Flat) 2,712.0 2.0 3.0 Unit 9 (Flat) 2,549.0 3.0 4.0 Unit 8 (Flat) 2,771.0 3,0 4.0 Unit 7 (Flat) 3,543.0 4.0 5.0 Unit 6 (Flat) 3,014.0 4.0 4.5 Unit 5 (Flat) 2,566.0 3.0 4.0 Unit 4 (Flat) 3,156.0 4.0 5.0 Unit 3 (Flat) 3,014.0 4.0 4.5 Unit 2 (Flat) 2,566.0 3.0 4.0 Unit 1 (Flat) 2 44 = 0 5.0 Total Dwelling Units 53,445.0 61.0 76.0 Fractional Feg Units Area Bedrooms Baths Fractional Fee Unit 22 1,653.0 2.0 2,0 Fractional Fee Unit 21 1,785.0 2.0 2.0 Fractional Fee Unit 20 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 19 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 18 t 1,653.0 2.0 2.0 Fractional Fee Unit 17 1,785.0 2.0 2.0 Fractional Fee Unit 16 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 15 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 14 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 13 2,538.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 12 2,486.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 11 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 10 1,648.0 2.0 2.0 Fractional Fee Unit 9 2,538.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 8 2,486.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 7 2,1 28.0 3.0 3.0 Fractional Fee Unit 6 2,538.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 5 2,486.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 4 2,128.0 3.0 10 Fractional Fee Unit 3 2,358.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 2 2,486.0 4.0 4.0 Fractional Fee Unit 1 2,128.0 3.0 3.0 Total Fractional Fee Units 47,592.0 69.0 69.0 Program Totals' 03/20/2003 4 C • Page 1 • Attachment: B Cn 0 0 LL 0 w 0 0 Cn 0 w x w ° 0 J J I w: n; V) 0 0 N Q r m W LL ! -7 /\ rt � / . / lt / . / . ' . / / . . ' / / . . / / / . / . / -- -� . / / . 64 E�l F | tiln x 0 0 Fo a 10 ti LI 14-L-1 ra- _o r e 7 • n sI I J �1 i a; o 1 1 r 1 f�� 1 r +l Q i-1 O V x A �1 a � a i 1 C I �A • 1r IL 41 a-3 O z [V cu 1 GY 4s z a US 0 u� O w 0 al Fm LL, zu Fa� W�eED Jam: Yo�;Eg'# K m 2 < m • • O . z L U c� U W � f ft ° Q C3 tD o � 4 L .. „ o z CU a O . z L U c� U W � f cn p i o CD N 0 N 0 1. SfS Q �i LE. • . O +� Z of �I wi COO C/) �I of j �I w ��m a m . w Zu v = t-o °enH z uJ< : ¢� x W N< _ emu' a a � g ❑ N a 1 �T� az O ° Q >1 U) � 0 u v Ct% • � P4 0 a Ela a m . w Zu v = t-o °enH z uJ< : ¢� x W N< _ emu' a a � 1 �T� Q .d V 0 u v Ct% • � 0 a m . w Zu v = t-o °enH z uJ< : ¢� x W N< _ emu' a a � ........... Cl • 0 an s-.9c 'n. I I• ) } �;z� 1\a?i'.d_ 7�� '. 1 i'i i 1 � ��- �r � � � Wo �I - JJ_J L sL � I JJ 1 'JJ L_ �f U19 r ` JJJ JJ_ — f— LLL ��� .j 1 I i .1-AC � a o � a a � a a V � �I 1 in &AL j I d .an a[ -,a . Wjiyl Phi y l �' . Wjiyl Phi X.0 F. Fs • • 0 FF L L- a Id ^ � - RE / ' 0 0 zi 0 P 3 i 2 O ed 16 m ZI 0 9 c -1 ell -i V 4 + A p - &'a A t I 1 ] .0 a T L 6 1 En C) cn 44 IT fit+ 1�4 zi 0 P 3 i 2 O ed 16 m ZI 0 9 c -1 ell -i r , i � � r r g rs �a E �O e Co G3 0 � rn terra 0 En 1, 4A i r a cn� w �► u a zu •L S OF J r = �Hr i uj C7 0 � 4 Z u •i a 0 N rI 0 O ry Q o 75 0 0 o V ©0 �i F�- .. C5 a z _moo w o LL,Q yF a a m J � < r 0 o 75 0 0 o V �i F�- rrTT . _moo w o LL,Q yF a a m J � < r CD p ao N +� 4 Q Ln z 00 u � -- o n CA o 0 0 ',.D U r5 > � U K r 4LK SC9 2 u NK u J � � J K m K i cn • • �r,Q � r I�a,enN � of ,ia7 I � �H � s ��� ► ice, 1 a*s R - r� N FC7 N O Q z cr U x fl 4 z z .. Tj Q O cn W z cn O w �o cis O .--a V cis a J of L �! ~ LuK Q ie V z . J < Y v � � I a °Q CV © o ` O 6 U z ON m m z *• aj a Q M .° s r � F� p '0 O ICI zu a : a Ltj[F C.D o u .. N< u m J a «_ J N A N N Q z Cs 0 a r--+ a c �s W � •- o GJ .. wN W =a UJ <, �— c �. n Ne a u J J � 2 w 0 a U c �s W � wN W =a UJ <, �— c �. n Ne a u J J � 2 ,F,oN 10 g Lrlz o � Qj 0 Q Wzy U CIS rQ 6J Cn Ca 0 u V r1 •0 �� 3./ `4 MW C3C w�a ZZ Su6� fV V J a lxK r y b O Y V < b zc U rc a J e � � < e �4 K ^_ N x rj a u 4 J J 4 � r O N O W u d r U G/1 W � .. o er Pik �4 K ^_ N x rj a u 4 J J 4 � r W U G/1 W � er Pik �4 K ^_ N x rj a u 4 J J 4 � r p CIA 0 LO Z rr-a V � e P4 � •• d Ate' .� E -4 W p z 0 0 0 0 _tea L N r 1g LLJr ; $ J � � J e < — y o N .p 0 w I i \ \ / \ 1 1 1 t JJ1 i �` 4 I j r � f i � gp '•€ m- = y 1 y y y yf. 1 G >'. •M H O P, [u I I - _ 1 Y gm}51'" A 0 0 I i I � I a r) N r--i N O "A�} , 4 o � 0 0 U 1 Qi !� cn 04 O ci D Z Ld # 8 r.,j r to � r u J � N C : W cn w CJ� o � 0 0 U !� cn 04 O Ld # 8 r.,j r to � r u J � N C : W 0 00 N to u U) � -• e c � r � Gm:�.A r / ` � z O al &_1 0 U as 9 U) O w Q W - z.- --! z o� gg °= it - UJ , �- xW%IVi i V ¢ J u 4 m a o w , 0 1 to I� L I I I I 1 i I I * 1 \� I � .mow G I� I z I Lt n W in Z. V � f i �� J � te r. Ni LLJ V � J < ? S r� N N Q z u¢ a 0 .--e O L am . i T � 1� d .z •• o z v Z. V � f i �� J � te r. Ni LLJ V � J < ? S W a 0 .--e O L am . i T � 1� _1 Z. V � f i �� J � te r. Ni LLJ V � J < ? S Go ° o Q c �. N C5 L Lf) .. a v n4 0 " :$ Q O y Y u C t) � 1 ., RS O w w N zQ W F( r i r .P� J�J DES ��i m . g fie• t7' W oY ct J J a S e I f U O �I r r t r I r r r A oo Q N 4 LO Q •- o Zy � Z V4 S] � v = a w con z o 0 Q U Cd ..d Zy � Z V4 S] � v = a I Q 1 � 4 � l G� I W TS cG 0 w cal) a w 0 Q 4- Q3 W �s 0 0 3-, V-4 0 0 a a 4 it M o U � W C'4 N Z C4 Lu W� Q D L W. s M c� x � s i17 r� fn i�1 0 ^C� 0 o V 0 Z Lu W� Q $ Y W. s r M NK � s 0 0 — Tamr14 v.n N` - ld 5N©I-LIGNQO JNIlSIX3 ago M UrK)A �4C Vj ; r , �'� w al sir , - ° — �• ` R:'r� ji� 7"�- I 'r y1 w ® ®1 f !t___— \ i� � / I _' �� aq � ��"rp I` • ,J \ 1 g _`_ e 3.f "' �e r� '' ! 1 v I i -•-_ y� _____ r � I 6 � E I R —' � ,• � l C� -, 1! � f ft ;I � •1Yj l 1 � ; :7F i ( 1 / i I � �i , ' f y1 , Iii , • • ! Ale It It ell Z HililEE: *sEee a �aE3EyEEEE 2 E M O O C%j Q W i NV - 41 IS OPDJOIOO 4 11 0 A .LU082W eNC)SVS8 Ednc�=i " WE A ire Il a�q irk - �lr Jam r Y 4 INV FIV a rwil. • • 0 • _s s OPOJOIOO '11 UnTla 1 i � r p? s ,v��I' fir■ �. � -� ma t @� ®r f ■ � r WIN- a UWE �. 2 • �i pava>wa - 11Ytl vM�q i ni �7 Ww]Sa9 peoy I'vh r i f 1' a 3 g� 0 • 0 DNidm `INV 9Z :bt.60 COOZ /OUZO `4 M ` JMO' Ndt 7 -3C]VHE)'Ja3SBW1JMO\LOOEOAOJ-\:d 0. V 1 �i pava>wa - 11Ytl vM�q i ni �7 Ww]Sa9 peoy I'vh r i f 1' a 3 g� 0 • 0 DNidm `INV 9Z :bt.60 COOZ /OUZO `4 M ` JMO' Ndt 7 -3C]VHE)'Ja3SBW1JMO\LOOEOAOJ-\:d NV - IOU-LNOO 1N3W103S aN'd NOISOt:13 iaosau sNC evras anon rr AB 5rayr,Y l . YIVF PI mW93G I Moll N -------------- •„� ------- ■ 0 Mliff I f l 00 f-' ,1 1 V v L 1 r � • •# ,}� r r 4 V •# ,}� £}. {l 4 i r, a�tr �; x •)N JNI y AION3 �2R nw ea rya - 1d L - r iv ss maw o1/ » u ,o=i .e sra.sr>a �.e a« •w.w 9 _ s a s --- - - - -•- ------------------- \ ` / ea _ e+ — r'".� rr. � e.a � ....� ea..>s� nr .— o� — e►� m= �.�sP�t!v� \ 4 / j j D �7{ Q �'/ Fg r { a r t p Y , ray fir .ar. Ny Y sg 1. rr 11 �� I r te' r1 1 '. \ ` 1 V i i e �: �2 � I yS e � 1l s { 1 � r $ I I r ti fie 1 F 1 v� 1 r J r r r' ,yY+Y / f r { 1. I � � 1 r ! 1 t Ji 1 11 t r rry E I fl f I E n r5 1 I r 1 1 r / 1 rn � _ pppp y f f f 4 / j j D �7{ Q �'/ Fg r { a r t p Y , ray fir .ar. Ny Y sg 1. rr 11 �� I r te' r1 1 '. y I l e i i e �: �2 � dal ppy yS e � r F 1 v� r r r r J r r r' ,yY+Y / f r I � � 1 r ! 1 t Ji 1 4 / j j D �7{ Q �'/ Fg r { a r t p Y , ray fir .ar. Ny Y sg 1. rr 11 �� I r te' r1 1 I '. y I l e i i e �: �2 e dal ppy yS s ar r F 1 v r r r r J r r r' ,yY+Y / f r I L ' • 7 '. y r s ar r v 1 / f r I � � 1 r ! 1 t Ji 1 r L ' • 7 0 0 • o* —em aNV �,. - gm film r _ y r e ire '• �1 �• .� I 1 15 &,'Lqwjw err f = JOWd d 'WV Z € :S0 :60 £OOZ /01/ZO ' 6mp• uinjo4ne\.ia4seW\6mp1TOOEOA011 :d W LL LL r +t• r WM9� 4 TF sa r �'k `r � k• �.. i • i-W W O p' r+ 7•`� 'x �t rRf"� 4 � ! W L L I r ti y q e =o F it uj ,T!_ £ Q $ � a � � � � � cu � � � � � � � � 22 Zi m. =lam e# -1 � N.-: � , §� U \( §� u -2\ i 1 1 • 0 • • ern � ry i� II n� 0 I � i I CL F f i s I 1 • 3. � I J V";` Y a � CIF � 1 4.. .•.L y it i 1 1 • 0 • c PCs t an �a s� 0 .--4 ...4 cl y i•r O SI7 o o d G� COO 0 W Z, W° �2.4h N ■ J` w� :. pq a j T cn II LL, }; 4� T I 4 !r�'^ - to vim z 4n - -3 t o o — I l l , � r, , a a # t1 r > r 1 { p ��r i � r '3�� Y'• z �u d put not 4 € u 3 j a ll TH tj V Y� as • • • ^a c o c CY. � u NO I O SL V Q }E-4 RPon( c � r Q r � �1►.1 / WW �1 �g Op 0 ca a� 0 w LLI Ulo J 1� S `'} �� + _ a IN u4v� •. w " T F y c y M � _ � � �� Y P pn 1 �� tom' _ Ri r *�•A� s • C 0 d a A C% V M w � w r O W bT ee V� v rr W� V1 a 0 p a ° ,Z.. u Qw w 2ol�,E J _ = Lu @ J 4 law p„ l 1/ it v 4 t � o 1 ♦y a .^ s A „ W AN Zd z Er � 1 N m . . 1 k 0 E A LL LL c E E a Zr 2 E ui wi �og�e Nx s E O mg o t V1 W c V1 I� � r r O 1� Zr 2 E ui wi �og�e Nx s L Cd .5 yea S k A � o �8 o� U� { I RV ..t Zf e - a 4 W } # � LU f 171 • • aic ar A � a� s� .L� r a w n LL. en �L de CL W P -( • ^y tV q 1 �1 o a$ e rA V1 0 w s z_ w ° 2q V] w o $ Ya N< K �I . LLB O V) Q fP ulj LIJ LO , W.: o h 1 � jyt q4� ! �Ny a s v ` 2 100400140 CL o GU 'IIVA ez I I "l- H'•':- CN Lh JU CD j LD ttr O .� Q U) C t` ' ~ c `—' as 0 +� t$ A �.r �,'^rti'•., \ ; tiL \ 'k * e... V,J hx: ""t`"'�' �y.'ti.- G - l1VA W Q � Ll � N ` �-• '' !� i 0 f r j 0 0 rf w (x V e%j' Ow . . " 000 : o C, o � N rj t� £ ti ,r j �• �°" � £lir✓jt s � c t U) ; w 0 'E I 0 v/ `j Its "oo r,ti? JR L a' J L,L :;uaWLjOeUd b [L r__ f" t. - r t r, a s '4 Y e S7 CL 20 0 ,® A �.r �,'^rti'•., \ ; tiL \ 'k * e... V,J hx: ""t`"'�' �y.'ti.- G - l1VA W Q � Ll � N ` �-• '' !� i 0 f r j 0 0 rf w (x V e%j' Ow . . " 000 : o C, o � N rj t� £ ti ,r j �• �°" � £lir✓jt s � c t U) ; w 0 'E I 0 v/ `j Its "oo r,ti? JR L a' J L,L :;uaWLjOeUd b [L r__ f" t. - r t r, Attachment: F ORDINANCE NO. 14 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 36, VAIL PLAZA HOTEL WEST, AND ADOPTING AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 36 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 12 -9A, VAIL TOWN CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO, WHERE=AS, Chapter 12 -9A of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations permits the adoption of Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, Waldir Prado, d.b.a. the Daymer Corporation, has submitted an application for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Zoning Regulations, the Planning & Environmental Commission held public hearings on the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has reviewed the prescribed criteria for establishment of special development districts and has submitted its recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed special development district, Vail Plaza Hotel West, complies with the none design criteria outlined in Section 12- 9A-8 of the Vail Town Code and that the applicant has demonstrated that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided; and WHEREAS, the approval of Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedence or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt the proposed Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 0 VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2001, is to adopt an Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, and to prescribe appropriate development standards for Special Development District No. 36, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -9A, Vail Town Code. The "underlying" zone district for Special Development District No. 36 will remain "Public Accommodation." Section 2. 'Establishment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report The procedural requirements described in Chapter 12 -9A of the Vail Town Code have been fulfilled and the Vail Town Council has received the recommendation of approval from the Planning & Environmental Commission for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West. Requests for the establishment of a special development district follow the procedures outlined in Chapter 12 -9A of the Vail Municipal Code, Section 3. Special Development District No. 36 i The Special Development District is hereby established to assure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 36, Vail 'Plaza Hotel West, is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Vail Town Council and the Planning & Environmental Commission, and has been established because there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation zone district requirements. Section 4. Development Standards - Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West Development Plan -- The Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall include the following plans and materials prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inc., dated June 11, 2001, and stamped approved by the Town of Vail, dated July 10, 2001: Improvements Plan Existing Circulation Circulation Plan Site Plan - Noah Site Plan - South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive Street Sections East and West Elevations North, Southwest and South Elevations West and East Building Sections South and North Building Sections Building Height Plan 1 — Absolute Heights 1 Interpolated Contours Building Height Plan 2 — Height Above Grade 1 Interpolated Contours Roof Plan Level 6 (223.0') Level 5 (213.0) Level 4 (202.5') Level 3 (1925) Level 2 (1825) Level 1 (172.5') Level 0 (162.5') Level --1 (1525) Level -2 (142.5') Level -3 (132.5') Mass/Bulk Study Permitted Uses- - The permitted uses in Special Development District No. 36 shall be as set forth in the development plans referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Conditional Uses— The conditional uses for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be set forth in Section 12 -7A -3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. All conditional • • 0 uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 12 -16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 0 Density-- Units per Acre - Dwelling Units, Accommodation Units, Fractional Fee Club Units and Employee Housing Units -- The number of units permitted in Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall not exceed the following: Dwelling Units — 15; Accommodation Units — 116; Fractional Fee Club Units — 40, Type III Employee Housing Units — 14 (4,971 square feet of residential floor area; 1,615 square feet of employee storage). Density-- Floor Area -- The gross residential floor area (GRFA), common area and commercial square footage i permitted for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Specifically GRFA - 151, 696 square feet Retail — 1,128 square feet Restaurant/Lounge — 1,708 square feet Conference Facilities — 20,624 square feet I Health Club — 10,016 square feet SpalTreatment — 3,820 square feet Employee Housing - 4,971 square feet of residential floor area; 1,615 square feet of employee storage Setbacks-- Required setbacks for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance. Height-- The maximum building height for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel Ol West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (73.5 feet maximum). Site Coverage- - The maximum allowable site coverage for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (58, 522 square feet above grade, 77,219 square feet below grade). Landscaping -- The minimum landscape area requirement for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (30, 874 square feet). Parking and Loading- - The required number of off - street parking spaces and loading /delivery berths for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be provided as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (225 spaces, 3 loading berths). In no instance shall Vail Road, West Meadow Drive or the South Frontage Road be used for load ingldelivery or guest drop-off/pick-up without the prior written approval of the Town of Vail. The required parking spaces shall not be individually sold, transferred, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the Zoning Regulations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 5. Approval Agreements for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West That the Developer submits the following plans to the Department of Community Development for review and approval as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; C. A Stormwater Management Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; • 0 •. , A Traffic Control Plan; A Spraddle Creek routing and containment plan; and An environmental audit including soils and stream conditions (during excavation). 2. That the Developer provides deed- restricted housing that complies with the I Town of Wail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12 -13) for a minimum of 28 employees 14 (4,971 square feet of residential floor area; 1,615 square feet of employee storage) , and that said deed - restricted housing be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail Plaza Hotel West. The required Type III deed - restricted employee housing units shall not be eligible for resale and the units will be owned and operated by the hotel and said ownership shall transfer with the deed to the hotel property. That the Developer submits a final detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department for Design Review Board review and approval prior to making i an application for a building permit. This plan will involve the removal of the obsolete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail on the Nine Vail Road property (Lot B, Vail Village Filing #2) and the re- vegetation of that portion of the site. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado 'Department of Transportation for review and approval of a revised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. That the Developer records an easement for Spraddie Creek. The easement shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The easement shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section, comprehensive sign program, rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an application for a building permit. 7. That the Developer posts a bond to provide financial security for the 150% of the total cost of the required off -site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit. Pursuant to Section 12- 7A -14, Town of Vail Code, the applicant shall pay road impact fees in an amount that is directly proportionate to the anticipated new road impacts generated by this development ($5000 X 85 new projected peak hour trip ends, for a total of $425,000.00). This dollar amount will be put in escrow once a building permit is issued. Any actual improvements constructed to the frontage road or Vail Road will be credited against the total. The escrowed dollars will be held for a period of 10 years from time of permit issuance. If and when any sort of funding mechanism is put in place (such as a special district which this development participates in) any dollars generated from the development will be offset by the amount owed. If there i is an excess, it will be refunded. Any shortfall will be made up by the escrowed dollars. 7 That the Developer either receives approval from the neighboring own er's associations to allow for construction activities on neighboring properties or submits a construction staging and limits of disturbance plan that indicates all of these activities will occur on the applicant's property, prior to application for building permit. 9. That the Developer agrees to provide ingress (via a legally binding easement agreement) for Lot B. Vail Village Filing #2 from Vail Road across the subject property and egress (via a legally binding easement agreement) for Lot B, Vail Village Filing #2 across the subject property to South Frontage Road. These easements will be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. The easements will be in effect as long as the surface parking exists on the Nine Vail Road property (Lot B, Vail Village Filing #2 )_ 10. That the Developer agrees to provide egress (via a legally binding easement agreement) from Lot A, Vail Village Filing #2 across the Developer's property via the proposed guest access drive, as described on the Approved Development Plan dated • 0 . June 11, 2401. This easement will be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. ! 11. That the Developer submits civil drawings to determine compliance with all Town of Vail engineering requirements prior to final Design Review Board approval. This includes all off -site improvements, including the improvements to the South Frontage Road, Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, as well as the coordination of the relor_ation of the existing electric transformers on the property with local utility providers. The revised location of the transformers will be part of the final landscape plan to be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. That the Town and the Developer enter into a Developer Improvement Agreement to outline obligations and responsibilities for off -site improvements, hours of construction activity, traffic management and other related issues in accordance with the Approved Development Plan dated June 11, 2001 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 14, 2041, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project. 0 13. That the Developer provides a centralized loading /delivery facility for the use of all owners and tenants within Special Development District No. 36. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development District. No, 36, The loading/delivery facility, including docks, berths, freight elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public and/or private loading /delivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate loading /delivery impacts upon the Vail Village loading /delivery system. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Developer that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail and /or others for the common use of the facility. The final determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vail. • • • Section 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof„ any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repeaied or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of June, 2001, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 10th day of July, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. 4t?,1 Ludwig Kuk, Mayor ATT T: :;'' � Ur(elejona&on Town Clerk ` 1 f, 0 C� READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 10th day of July, 2001. SEAL s ATTE I-Wlei.,lbonaldson, Town Clerk 4; 6 " � Ludwig Ku , Mayor 0 0 0 0 L O C7 RS W s. O LL 4l O .�' c) c N c Q N .^ U L 0 N 2 Cr 1--r(D U co N m Co In ►- r - T 0000 , I,- C? L! C) C> C T-- t" rNNM (D Cf) c U C) C) T r r Cp GLl7 C:) U �t W U) U U - 0 - 0 C X) v S - - .E �_ c3 r- uo c c oo c . r N M M C9 :3 u cr • .■ 6 cr 00 co w Lt? r - a- m m m T T 00 CD tp r-. c c a) 0 O O o a O O -tl , ZH ,^ q H q LO Q V co r N CV rr H H L' C\i RC)r -N1'- OC)C)Ca0 N N N N N L6 U C) O C) C) N C1 't ce) co CD LO cz C7 to O f CD O C> CD 0 m C) m7 o NNNNN ct m—m c3) � Cr r Ln c ' C7 (D N °3w O CZ to U co Q � N co CU LC) Lq 0 Cry 6 N ' U) I- NN LOCOC co CD LO cz C7 to O f CD O C> CD 0 m C) m7 o NNNNN ct m—m U) O 0 O Q W . O 7 O L U cn C N E CL O Q) O D C) (1) Q U) O C7 N W • • E) :IUOLULIoell a c3) � c ' °3w U co C`3C'3 ��:0m 4) N C] 'D try O O 'Lo O to D co O CO �� ) q) ° ' rti O [5`C �� N Ch M m o Q) a) r c LL QLL ❑ cU N R3 LL ! W to ca Co LL! co L Q OQCO (� tCS v LL°� tLS Z CO c_ . C w y- cz O -j (D 0 W (n U) W Cl7 cz `V o 2 J a_ J U) O 0 O Q W . O 7 O L U cn C N E CL O Q) O D C) (1) Q U) O C7 N W • • E) :IUOLULIoell a Attachment: H VAIL URBAN DESIGN REVIEW FOUR SEASONS RESORT 17 Febawy 2003 The building has undergone a significant transformation since the original presentation. Much has been done to break the previous building mass into smaller building components that replace the long, relatively uniform facade that was presented to the South Frontage Road. The overall building is now much more successful in having the appearance of a collection of smaller buildings. The gable roof forms are much more in character with the Village. Remaining are two minor concerns about the height transition to the Alpburn and Scorpio, a suggestion about strengthening the pedestrian connections, and a potential concern about the overall size of a few of the roof planes visible from the Frontage Road and Roundabout (see Addition Comments at end). Urban Design ■ Complier, G Partially complies ❑ Non-compliant ? Not analyzed, information not available ■Pedestrianization Public walkway is along street edge for South Frontage Road, Vail Road, and West Meadow Drive. The retail is internal and not intended to attract walk -by traffic. However, there are strong pedestrian desire lines from the hotel to the Village and LionsHead via Vail Road and West Meadow Drive. This suggests broad sidewalks on the south side of the building (to West Meadow Drive) and on the east end of the building. The applicant has been responsive to Town suggestions and reconfigured sidewalks in these locations. We recommend further emphasis by expanding these walks into plazas where they meet the street sidewalk ■ Street Enclosure Although no street sections in drawing set, street building appears to fall within the 2:1 enclosure ratio for all surrounding streets. ■ Street Edge Although pedestrianization not very relevant to South Frontage Road, it is still important to present a varied facade to the street to be consistent with Vail Village character. The applicant has been very responsive to previous Town comments and on the South Frontage Road has varied the building massing to create a lively facade. Similarly, the cast elevation has variety, and the 45- degree angle not only responds to the roundabout, but also creates a plane parallel to the 9 Vail Road buildua . ■ Building Height See TOV staff comments. Along the South Frontage Road the building slightly exceeds the zoning height for one building element in the center of the north elevation. However, in our opinion, the resulting variety and tapering of the building to the east and west compensate for a height exception. Two previous areas of concern, the NW and SW corners of the building (where it meets the Scorpio and Alphom) have been addressed, but further minor adjustments are warranted: I - On the SW corner, the roof massing has been stepped down to better transition to the Alphom. However, the model view looking east through the Alpeahom parking still shows the building looming over the Alpenhorn, especially the right hand gable end of the two that are visible. Lowering this able end nd e elev. =225.5 ) by 15 to 25 feet would hel make a more Vail-Four Seasons Resort2 Page 1 ofl 0 0 n L J 2299 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • BOULMR, CO 80302 303 - 440 -9200 • FAX 303 - 449 -6911 • jtwinstonCawinstonassociates .cam Four Seasons Resort Vail Urban Design Review Winston .Associates, Inc. 311712003 40 Additional Observations; Roof massing. Extending the roof planes lower toward the ground has created a distinctive character for the building, almost an `A -frame' look in several locations. However, this has also increased the size of the roof planes, especially the planes with north -south ridges, as viewed from the Frontage Road. The elevation drawings do not fully convey the resulting scale of the roof forms, which are now lower and more visible. The photomontages are very helpful, but only hint at how large, or visible, the roof planes may be. Note specifically the roof planes visible in the photomontage from the Roundabout, and the photomontage from Spraddle Creek, These are static views and the roof planes may be more, or less, visible in reality as one moves by the building. In our opinion, this one aspect of the project deserves additional scrutiny. For example, if it appears that the roof planes are disproportionately large, it may be appropriate to make slight breaks in the larger roof planes. (It may also turn out that at eye level the roof planes are not out of scale with the context.) However, to study this it is imperative to be able to accurately visualize this building in its surrounding setting. We suggest either more montages or incorporating the building in a `walk- around' model. This is too nice a building, and too important a location, not to be as sure as we can about its design `ft'. 3T W Drawings Reviewed: FOUR SEASONS RESORT —Vail, Colorado, Zehren and Associates, Inc./Hill Glazier, March 5,2003 Vail -Four Seasons Reso rt2_ Page ? 303 -440 -9200 e FAX 303- 449 -6911 - WIn13209AOL,GOM ; 2299 PEARL STREET. SUITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302 gradual transition and present less of a wall to the Alphorn. 2. On the NW comer, the west facing gable end (ridge elev: 231.4') is still significantly taller than the Scorpio roof. We recognize that this gable is set back from the fagade of both buildings, but feel that lowering a portion of it 10 to 15' would make a better transition, similar to what has been achieved at the east end o the Four Seasons. ■Views This quadrant of intersection is not a regulated view corridor ■ Sun /shade The sun/shade analysis shows that for the new building placement and massing, the Spring and Fall Ecriod, a yery minor shadow will be cast in the public ROW. EService/delivery Service parking provided below grade under porte-cochere. Architecture//Landscape Architecture MRoofs Mansard roofs have been replaced with gable roofs, which are consistent with Villa e Guidelines. ■Overhan s Good ■Facades Good Color Not shown ■Windows Good ■ Window details Good ■Doors Good ■ Trim Good ■Decks! atios Good ■Balconies Good ■Accent elements Good ELandsca a Good Additional Observations; Roof massing. Extending the roof planes lower toward the ground has created a distinctive character for the building, almost an `A -frame' look in several locations. However, this has also increased the size of the roof planes, especially the planes with north -south ridges, as viewed from the Frontage Road. The elevation drawings do not fully convey the resulting scale of the roof forms, which are now lower and more visible. The photomontages are very helpful, but only hint at how large, or visible, the roof planes may be. Note specifically the roof planes visible in the photomontage from the Roundabout, and the photomontage from Spraddle Creek, These are static views and the roof planes may be more, or less, visible in reality as one moves by the building. In our opinion, this one aspect of the project deserves additional scrutiny. For example, if it appears that the roof planes are disproportionately large, it may be appropriate to make slight breaks in the larger roof planes. (It may also turn out that at eye level the roof planes are not out of scale with the context.) However, to study this it is imperative to be able to accurately visualize this building in its surrounding setting. We suggest either more montages or incorporating the building in a `walk- around' model. This is too nice a building, and too important a location, not to be as sure as we can about its design `ft'. 3T W Drawings Reviewed: FOUR SEASONS RESORT —Vail, Colorado, Zehren and Associates, Inc./Hill Glazier, March 5,2003 Vail -Four Seasons Reso rt2_ Page ? 303 -440 -9200 e FAX 303- 449 -6911 - WIn13209AOL,GOM ; 2299 PEARL STREET. SUITE 100 • BOULDER, CO 80302 TOWN OF VAIL .Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -245.2 www.ci. vail.ca us February 20, 2003 John Kohler Foshay Tower 821 Marquette Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tire Los@ PO Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 RE Design Review Board summary of comments from February 19, 2003, for the Four Seasons Resort. Dear John and Tim, On February 19, 2003, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposal for the Four Seasons Resort, located at 28 S. Frontage Rd_ and 13 Vail Rd. ! Lots 9A and 9C, Vail Village 2" Filing. I have provided a summary of their comments below: The pedestrian access and flow from the building require additional consideration. The pedestrian entrances should be significant and recognizable as grand entrances into the building. The pedestrian accesses should consider the general flow of pedestrian traffic towards both the Village and Lionshead. Pedestrians will naturally take the shortest route and the path of least resistance. The pedestrian accesses should take that into consideration. 2. Do not face the main pedestrian access to the roundabout. While the Design Review Board supports the architectural relationship of the building to the roundabout and the Gateway Building, do not mimic the Gateway Building's entrance off the roundabout, as pedestrian traffic does not naturally flow that direction. Instead, consider re- orienting the pedestrian entrance to Vail Road. 3. Carefully consider the proposed materials and their compliance with the Town of Vail Building Code. The Town of Vail is using the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The Design Review Board is supportive of the materials proposed, but concerned about compliance with the 1997 UBC. 1164 RECYCLED PAPER 4. The west elevation, adjacent to the Alphorn and Scorpio, needs additional consideration. Look at creative solutions to treat the walkway between the buildings, as this area will be cavernous and confined, and a difficult space to make attractive and welcoming. 5. The roof forms are extremely complicated. The Design Review Board stated that they would reserve judgment on the roof forms until after having a chance to study the model for clarification. 6. Whil - o- generally supportive of bulk and mass. the model will also help the Design Review Board to understand the proposed bulk and mass, and the relationship to adjacent properties. However, generally, the Design Review Board stated that the design successfully camouflages the height, bulk, and mass of the building. The most important aspect will be the transition of the building to adjacent buildings. 7. Generally, the Design Review Board is very supportive of the architecture, identity, and direction the project has taken. They stated that their focus will now be in the details. Specifically, the project should look like it was added to over -time, and that theme should be accomplished by subtly varying the materials, colors, trim, etc. 8. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, also had the following comments and concerns: a. There needs to be a smoother transition to the Alphorn and the Scorpio. This is an important relationship and will have a huge impact on the apparent bulk and mass of the project. b, Clarify the impact of the ramp into the parking structure on the Frontage Rd. elevations. How does the ramp impact the storefront windows' c. Consider the windows into the loading bay. They do not need to mimic the storefront windows, but there needs to be some break in the wall of the loading bay. Look at windows which are perhaps higher and smaller windows, so that the uses in the loading bay are not visible, but will provide interest and variation to the Frontage Rd. elevation. d. The pedestrian entries need additional consideration, as does the vehicular entry feature. These need to be grander, re- enforcing the fact that they are the primary entrances to the building. e_ Additional information is needed regarding the gambrel roof. An updated model will help to clarify. Should you have any comments or questions regarding my summary, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970 -479 -2369. l would be glad to provide additional clarification, if needed. Sincerely, Allison Ochs, AICP Planner 11 Town of Vail 0 CC: Gecrge Ruther, Chief of Planning NOV 12 '02 09 :57 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19704792166 P.02i06 Attachment: l FELSBURG ( 4HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paehs CO transpflrtrztion solurions November 11, 2002 Mr, Greg Hall Town of Vail Dept. of Public Works/Transportation Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Chateau Development Proposal Site Access. Review FHU Project dumber 02 -056 Dear Mr. Hall- We have completed our review of the Chateau site plan relative to access, The proposed plan is comprised of two separate developments along the Frontage Road separated by Vaii Road, The following are our comments relative to site access to each element. East Develooment Cam anent The east development proposal is somewhat burdened by the need to also provide access to the adjacent Village Inn Plaza. The inbound consideration of this component should not be probfematic, and inbound movements should be allowed from the Frontage Road and from Vail Road, The outbound movements are less than ideal since much of the development's outbound traffic will tend to turn toward the roundabout. Full movement access onto the Frontage Road will be difficult during peak hours relative to the outbound left turning vehicle. As such, the access point onto the Frontage Road should be limited to three - quarter movement only (no left out) with the provision that an internal connection be maintain between the Frontage Road access and the full- movement access onto Vail Road. This will ensure that a means of tuming toward the roundabout is provided (via Vail Road) for Chateau traffic as well as for the adjacent Village Inn Plaza traffic. It should be noted that the Village Inn plaza development currently has a full- movement access onto the Frontage Road on the east end of their building. Therefore, the eastem component should provide a three - quarter movement onto the Frontage Road and a full movement access onto Vail Road. • 303.721.1 W fax 303.721.0832 fhu @rhueag_com Gri :erlwond Corporate Plaza 1951 E. Maplewood Ave. Sce, 200 NOV 12 '02 09:97 FR FHU 383 721 8832 TO 19704492166 P.03/26 November 11, 2002 Mr. Greg Hall Page 2 West Development Corn onent Access to the western component entails other issues. Like the east component, it makes sense to allow an access onto the Frontage Road and one onto Vail Road, but the nature of these access points is different. Relative to access onto Vail Road, it will be difficult to make a left turn out of the site onto Vail Road (toward the roundabout) during peak times. As such, the Vail Road site access should be limited to inbound movements only. Access to the Frontage Road is complicated by the proximity of the roundabout and by the alignment of the f=rontage Road. First, it should be recognized that outbound right turn -only movements onto the Frontage Road is appropriate, With the Vail Road access being limited to inbound only, Frontage Road access would clearly need to provide for outbound movements. Outbound left turn movements need not be accommodated at the Chateau's Frontage Road access given the ability for exiting site traffic to make use of the roundabout and conducting a "U" turn to travel west along the Frontage Road. The inbound site traffic movement from the Frontage Road needs to be located away from the roundabout. An access located too close to the roundabout could result in left -in vehicular queues that stack back into the roundabout, thus negatively affecting the roundabout's operations. We suggest that the inbound site access from the Frontage Road be located as far west (and away from the roundabout) i s possible to accommodate left -in stacking. Doing so will require special provision given an access to the Town's facility along the north side of the Frontage Road. Specifically, a_rneans of preventing head -on collisions between opposing left turning vehicles should be explored. This could potentially be achieved through side -by -side opposing left turn lanes. The western location is also advantageous in that than its placement may allow for greater sight distance for the driver attempting to turn left into the site given the roadways alignment. Today the sight distance is adequate for any access location along the site's frontage, but it is possible that a raised median could be installed along the Frontage Road in the future. Pending the nature of this future raised ,median (and if it could be built up significantly or perhaps be used for snow storage), an access location at approximately the mid -point of the site's frontage may not Provide adequate sight distance for the inbound left tum movement given the curvature of the 1 . roadway Providing the left -in access at the western end of the property would better lend itself to maintaining driver sight distance in the event that a future raised' median with a high profile is constructed (or if the median is used for significant snow storage). Therefore, the western component should allow an inbound access only from Vdil a right - out only access onto the Frontage Rcr,ad (and perhaps two right -out only accesses could be provided if delivery vehicles needed to be accommodated separately), and a three- quarter access (no left out) onto the Frontage Road as far west as possible. C, NOU 12 1 02 09 :58 FR FHU 303 721 0832 To 19704792166 P -04/06 November 11, 2002 Mr. Greg Hall Page 3 This should provide some insight relative to the Chateau access' preferences and the operation of the adjacent streets. Clearly, there are many other considerations that would go into the final plan_ The mentioned items should be considered in the planning of the site development_ if you have any questions or need additional information, please call_ Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEAG lr�V4 4�� - Christopher J, Fasc ing, F.E. Principal • Feb 26 03 04:32p RLPINE ENGINEERING 9703263390 p,1 J.P rE a ENGINEERING INC. Alpine Engineering, Inc./P.O. Box 97/Edwards, Colorado /87632/970- 928- 3373/FAX 970 -926 -3390 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DATE: 21 6 /, 3 JOB TITLE: ,1 s �F o�� — ✓.�rG. Name: Nome: Name: Company /` Fax: 61e 337 Z yl Y Company. Fax: Company: Fax. lNcarnc 1v�7 GOsr¢ Name: Name: Company. c��t`rir.� Spy Company. Company. Fax: G ..'� Fax: Fax. • Feb 26 03 04:32p ALPINE ENGINEERING 9703263390 p.2 Feb 2G oa (34:33p BLRINE ENGINEERING Feb-26-o3 13t -qa- •- 04 :33F RLRINE ENGINEERING Feb 2S OS Few -Zb -o3 I3 :b4 yob ■Denver 2 ■ . .2 2 « & � K 27 � \ J k ■E2 0 © 30 ' k q ■ U. = 2 R > ol 0 e 0 v �■ ■ � c / g22� n CL@g kkk� &. cn r- m@rƒ§ �t _$ 7 - § E /225 C-4 0 k 0 )C_j m o. oƒ e U) §�S± 0— . lu k a e\_ 2 \�2 CL a t e I om &® S7092633\o - au� X33 �iu� . � u 0 c o < < </ § ¢ § z k \ / a) 3 . � 2 ƒ2\\ 0 2– �$ ¥ � 7 t , a V) $2 /J . 2 E& % 5 k � � $ \ � #_ ƒ Cr � 7 7 % kf k./ 0 • ae � m >� �k O W Q N N 3 zs a z A yl D N r th ak O W O IV N O 0 d 4 � x m 7 � Yl � h N i! A SJ Q � m x N 3 tL! C YF N O W � • G`f1`.t /nrT r - s'np .AOAGaa #Dsi OO =Et ..e0 9z - c;eA 9'd OSEE906OLS SWIb23WI9N3 3WIdlU 4j E :+ EE 92 qad • 0 m C N a 4L 0 Gi N 9 m C A C . y d � m � WL LA -t n a ca N � o m 7- 0 ir w 4 r n xt Q w 0 iV 0 to a 0 ra N� ° am LA -q �»•, ,nr c^c-c- vnc- -AO^ enAnR1 TO:F'T £A -9Z -q7 A L'd OBEE92SOL SWIN33WISM3 3WId - IU db E -b0 EO 92 Ga.l Fete 26 03 04:34p ALPINE ENGINEERING 5709283390 P.8 Fetter -26 -Q3 13:01 LSC#Oernver 303 333 11U/ Y.U—N Queuing and Blocking Report PM PM Exisiting Plus Site - Winter PM Exisiting Plus Site - Winter ttttlarspction: 1. Sc futh Frontage Road 8W Sit Access '• t W7„ 1.. °si'{t'_ 2 'E�i°.yT Directions Served L t_ T R R °.— Maximum Queue (ft) 30 70 56 74 24 Average Queue (ft) 9 33 2 26 12 95th Queue (ft) 31 60 19. _ 51 31 Link Distance (ft) 25 144 144 126 75 Upstream 81k Time ( %) 0.03 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (vet,) 0 Intersection- 2'. South Frontage Road & Truc Loading Access Mo verbent r t11B.' Drections Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 24 Average Queue (ft) 2 95th Queue (ft) 11 Link Distance (ft) 124 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (fl) Storage 61k Time Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection 3: South Frontage Road 8W �411dVQt71!?rlt i _ s LI f' inxy }- Directions Serves} Maximurn Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Btk Time Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( °%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Vail Fnur Seasons (LSC # 030220) Analyst, Alam SM LSCINCCS2 - ST51 PM Exisiting Plus Site - Winter Page 3 • Feb 26 03 04:34p Feb - eta - U3 13:01 ALPINE ENGINEERING LaLOOenver 9709263390 sU.3 3 ., 11U/ p.9 r.vo r r Queuing and Blocking Report 2015 PM Total - Winter 2015 PM Total- Winter 2!2612043 . , 1: South Frontage Read & Site Access ■ Intersection s T �t 1 MOM r' T s Directions Served L TR L T TR R t..s_.0 i R Maximum Queue (fl) fib 23 68 317 .264 ' 73 50 Average Queue (ft) 14 1 95th Queue 3 12 9 25 ' 14 (ft) 145 7 146 ..t38 53' 37 Link Dista (ft) 25 25 143 143 143 126 75 Upstre >arn Elk Time ( %) 0.16 -0,00 . 4.01 Queuing Penalty (veh) 98 4 5 q Storage Bay Oist (ft) . Storage Btk Time (%) - Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection_ 2: So uth Frontage Road & Truck Loadincf Access n � ..y 1 Directions Served TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 28 25 Average Queue (ft) 1 2 35th Queue (ft) 9 11 Link distance (it) 3 124 Upstream Blk Time (%} Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bey Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing. Penalty (veh) Intersectio 3: South Frontage Road & 1+'� x G4t cs- &y.*`� �' °, G. eE'�g , - s t k fps,' re , Directions Served T T k Maximum Queue (ft) . 62 246 Average Queue (ft) 2 7 95th Queue (ft) 20 68. Link Distance (ft) - 7 146 Upstream Blk Time ( °!a) 0.44 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 6 Storage Bay gist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) • Vail Four Seasons (LSC 0- 030220) 2 PM Total - Winter Analyst, Alam SM Page 3 LSCINCCS2 -STS1 Feb 26 03 04:35p Feb-26-03 13:02 ALPINE ENGINEERING LSC#Denvev 9709263390 303 333 11U7' P. 10 SimTraffio Performance Report PM Exisiting Plus Site- Winter PM Exisiting Plus Site- Winter 2/2612003 1 South Frontage Road & Site Access Performance by movement Total Delay (hr) 0.0 O'l 0.0 0.2 03 0.0 0.1 0.0 E)elay'* I Veh (S) 11.5 2 . . . , �a .2. .2 .5.3 '3,1 Total Stops 9 0 0 61 1 0 - 72 17 1 South Frontage Road & Site Access Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) 0.1. 0.5 0.1 0.0 07 Delay I Veh (s) ' .: 0.2 � - � �'. 1.1 5.3 3.1 0.0 Total Stops 9 * ' " 62 72 it 160 2* South Frontage Road Truck Loading Access performance by movement �- � T Total Delay (hr) 00 0.0 j 0.1 0.0. Delay I Veh (s) O'l 1. 4 0. 2 1.2 Total Slops 0 0 a 2 2 South Frontage Road & Truck Loadinq Access Intersection Performance 3: South Frontage Road & Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Delay / Veh (s) 0.9 0'1 0.2 1.2 0.1 Total Stops 5.0 0 0 2 2 3. South Frontage Road & Performance by movement 0 Total Delay (hr) 01 00 0.7 Delay / Veh (s) OA 01 5.0 Total Stops 0 0 0 3: South Frontage Road & Intersection Performance Vail Four Seasons (L,;C # 030220) PM Exisitog Plus Site- Winter Analyst, Alann SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST5I • Total Delay (hr) 0,1 0.0 0.7 0.9 Delay f Veh (s) 0.4 0.1 5.0 1.0 Total Stops 0 0 0 0 Vail Four Seasons (L,;C # 030220) PM Exisitog Plus Site- Winter Analyst, Alann SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST5I • Feb 26 03 04:35p RLPINE ENGINEERING 9709263350 P.11 Feb-26-03 13:02 LSC#Denver 303 333 1107 S=Traffic Performance Report 2,415 PM Total- Winter 2015 PM Total- Winter 2/26/2003 1. South Frontage Road & Site Access Performance by movement Total Delay (hr) 0.1 01 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 Delay / Veh (s) 37.0 0.2 2.3 17.2 1.4' . 3.6 9.1- 4.8 Total Stops 7 D 0 50 20 0 63 11 1: South Frontage Road & Site Access Intersection Performance 2: South Frontage Road & Truck Loading Access Performance by movement T " Y4�17i e. S , r 4 YYiJ- -7717 1 �j �R]jj&M, Total Delay (hr) . Total Delay (hr) 0.2 1.1 02 0.0 1.5 Delay / Veh (s) -0.4 0 0 0 4 Total Stops 7 70 63 11 151 2: South Frontage Road & Truck Loading Access Performance by movement 2: South Frontage Road & Truck Loading Access'Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Delay I Veh (s) 0.2 0.3 4.0 - 0.2 Total Stops 0 0 4 4 3. South Frontage Road & Performance by movement Mlm M Total Delay (hr) 0.3 O'l 1.0 Delay I Veh (a) 0.5 0.3 'S.4 Total Stops 0 12 a 3: South Frontage Road & Intersection Performance 7YY Ovy,�,- Total ' Delay (hr) 0.3 OA 1.0 1.4 Delay / Veh (s) 0.5 0.3 = 5.4 1,3 Total Stops 0 12 0 12 Vail Four Seasons (LSC # 030220) 2016 PM Total- Winter Analyst .Alain SM Page I LSCINGCS2-ST51 0 Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0,0 Delay I Veh (s) 0.2 - 1.4 0.3 ' 4.0 Tol2l Stops 0 0 0 4 2: South Frontage Road & Truck Loading Access'Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Delay I Veh (s) 0.2 0.3 4.0 - 0.2 Total Stops 0 0 4 4 3. South Frontage Road & Performance by movement Mlm M Total Delay (hr) 0.3 O'l 1.0 Delay I Veh (a) 0.5 0.3 'S.4 Total Stops 0 12 a 3: South Frontage Road & Intersection Performance 7YY Ovy,�,- Total ' Delay (hr) 0.3 OA 1.0 1.4 Delay / Veh (s) 0.5 0.3 = 5.4 1,3 Total Stops 0 12 0 12 Vail Four Seasons (LSC # 030220) 2016 PM Total- Winter Analyst .Alain SM Page I LSCINGCS2-ST51 0 Feb 26 43 04-35P ALPINE ENGINEERING CL -- - s� a 4 � 4 t I 1 * tit I � L . v 4 ti 0 v► 971792633; C1 1 a- �`°"� leaf'f �L7 k Iasi 9 VI A ✓ 'til >, I CIO :" S.'.I l *. 1, I J Attachment: K P . • March 20, 2003 Ms. Allison Ochs Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Four Seasons Resort _ Vail Dear Allison: This letter shall address the written statement requirements set forth on the Conditional Use Permit Submittal Requirements form for the requested conditional use permit in connection with the above referenced project and shall specifically address the criteria set forth in the Town of Vail Code for Type III Employee Housing Units and For a Fractional Fee Club. A. Describe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. We are proposing to construct a Four Seasons Resort, which $hall include in a single building, a Fractional Fee Club, Condominiums, Type III Employee Housing Units and other functions common to hotel projects such as, restaurant, retail, spa, and meeting rooms. The site we are developing compromises the Chateau at Vail site and the Alpine Standard site. The Chateau at Vail site is zoned PA (Public Accommodation) and the Alpine Standard site is zoned HS (Heavy Service). We are staying with in and compiling with all GRFA requirements for this site, which keeps the project within the standards set up for density in this area. Our building height is scaled down from a high point along the Frontage Road to just 48 feet high along West Meadow Drive. We have also taken special notice of the surrounding buildings and have made sure from a size and mass standpoint that our proposed building transitions well with the adjacent buildings and that the height of our building directly adjacent to the surrounding buildings are at or below the elevations as were approved by the Town of Vail in the Vail Plaza Hotel West project. B. The relationship and impact of the use on ,development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail is encouraging development of more "hot beds" in Vail. Our Fractional Fee Club project will have an occupancy rate equal to or higher than the average occupancy of current hotels in Vail. Owners of fractional fee units typically use their units for their allotted weeks or allow family and friends to use the units since the owner has already paid for the use of the unit and owners generally will not "waste" this prepaid lodging. Our Type III Employee Housing Units are being developed for hotel employees based on the size of our project. These units are also desired by the Town to allow Village employees to live in Vail and not be forced out of town by the cost of housing. � y t Ms. Allison Ochs Town of Vail Re: Four Seasons Resort — Vail March 20, 2003 Page 2 of 4 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 and public facilities needs. The impact of this project should be a very positive for the Town of Vail. We have completed and provided the Town staff with a traffic study to determine the impacts of traffic on the adjacent streets and we are proposing improvements for the Frontage Road to improve traffic safety. By designing the project with the tallest portion adjacent to the Frontage Road we have minimized the effect the project will have on the light and air for the neighboring properties. We are adding sidewalks along the Frontage Road to the bus stop and along our west property line from the Frontage Road to 'West Meadow Drive to enhance pedestrian traffic in the area. We are also creating a primary walkway from West Meadow Drive into the center of our project to enhance pedestrian traffic from Vail Village to the hotel. Finally, we have designed this project to enhance this overall area of Vail and so that it should have a positive impact on the Town facilities and the neighboring properties. D. The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and 0 pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. The impact of traffic from this project can be seen in the traffic study that was completed for this submittal. The study recommended improvements be made to the Frontage Road to improve turning movements in and out of this site. We have incorporated these recommendations into our plans. They include new left turn lanes as well as widening the Frontage Road. We are also eliminating all of the curb cuts that currently exist on Vail Road from this site as well as the curb cut currently existing into the gas station from the Frontage Road. Our access points on the Frontage Road are being moved west to align with the police station entry to improve traffic flow and safety in this area. 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. We have designed this project to minimize the feel and look of the height. This can be seen in the north elevation. We have designed a roofing system that includes a number of gables and pitches that allows the scale of the building to be brought down to complement the surrounding buildings and to somewhat standardize the transition from the surrounding buildings to this project. We have also broken the building up into smaller areas by breaking up the north wall into a number of recessed plains. This is enhanced by using different exterior materials on these different plains. The project also changes dramatically in height as you move south toward West Meadow Drive. At West Meadow Drive the height of the building is similar to the buildings on either side with a maximum height of 48 feet. We have broken up the West Meadow Drive Ms. Allison Ochs Town of Vail Re: Four Seasons Resort —Vail March 20, 2003 Page 3 of 4 facade of the building with a large open space centered on the swimming pool. The project wraps the pool area with two arms opening up to West Meadow Drive and inviting pedestrians to come in. This project should be a wonderful addition to the Vail Village and a new stop for many visitors to Vail. F. Compliance with Criteria for Type III ,Employee Housing Units. The Type III Employee Housing Units to be constructed in this project comply with all of the applicable requirements contained in the Town of Vail Code. Specifically, the Type III Employee Housing Units will be operated and maintained by the hotel operator and shall be leased to the hotel's employees that work an average minimum of thirty (3 0) hours each week at the hotel. These units will be leased in intervals equal to or exceeded thirty (30) consecutive days and shall be at a lease rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar Type III Employee Housing Units. The Type III Employee Housing Units and the building in which they are located has been developed and planned so at to not exceed the maximum GRFA permitted by the Town of Vail Code and we have located the trash facilities so that they are enclosed within the building; have provided separate entrances to each Type III Employee Housing Unit; and have provided parking and storage for employees in the underground garage. The individual Type III Employee Housing Units have been designed at three hundred (300) square feet each and shall be occupied by no more than two (2) employees. They shall contain, at a minimum, a kitchenette (as that term is defined in the Town of Vail Code) and a bathroom. G. Compliance with Criteria for Fractional Fee Club. The Fractional Fee Club proposed in this project complies with all of the applicable requirements contained in the Town of Vail Code. Specifically, the Fractional Fee Club shall be managed and operated by the hotel operator and each unit shall have no fewer than six (6) and no more than twelve (12) owners per unit (we are currently planning to have nine (9) owners per unit). The use of the Fractional Fee Club shall be controlled by a reservation system run by the hotel operator and controlled on site by a front desk operation located in the hotel lobby which is operated twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, three hundred and sixty -five (365) days a year, providing registration, reservation and other amenities to the owners. This project is proximate to bus stops on the Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive and is walking distance to the Vail Village which offers retail shops and eating and drinking establishments. The project also offers retail, restaurants, spa and health club facilities in the hotel for the use by the fractional owners. The ongoing maintenance, repair and capital improvements shall be managed by the hotel operator and paid for through annual or special assessments to the owners. The Fractional Fee Club governing documents shall include (among other provisions) a control provision which sets " N Is. Allison Ochs Town of Vail Re. Four Seasons Resort —Vail March 20, 2003 Page 4 of 4 certain maintenance requirements that must be maintained and appointing the hotel operator as the managing agent. Finally, as can be seen on the plans, the Fractional Fee Club maintains an equivalency of accommodation units as are currently existing. Thank you for your continued help and effort in this matter. Very truly yours, tIFTI 1{,.. M A U: ryW TJBIvjh • LJ d MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) control the use and development of property within the Town. All properties within the Town are included within one of the Town's residential, commercial/business, open space /recreation, or special zone districts. The Town of Vail residential zone districts include development standards that regulate the use, lot size, building setbacks, building height, density, gross residential floor area, site coverage, landscaping, parking, and architectural design of properties within any of the Town's residential zone districts. The Town of Vail has received an application to amend one of these development standards for residential zoned properties. The applicants, Vicki Pearson, et.al., are proposing text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to eliminate the existing gross residential floor area (commonly known as GRFA ") limits within the Town's residential zone districts (gross residential floor area is defined as the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls). This application has been submitted by a group of more than 75 individual homeowners, architects, contractors, realtors, and citizens in Vail who have expressed their concerns that the current GRFA requirements create inequities between neighbors, contain loopholes that defeat the purpose of the regulations and add additional layers to an already- complex development review process. The purpose of this meeting is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to receive further public input and testimony related to the proposed text amendments. Public notice of this hearing was published in the Vail Daily newspaper and mailed directly to the owners of record of property within the subject zone districts and to owners of record of property adjacent to the subject zone districts. Additionally, the Town of Vail posted a press release about this request and today's public hearing on the Town's website and submitted the same press release to the Vail Daily newspaper. TOWN' OF VA LL y At this time, the Community Development Department is not making a recommendation is for approval or denial of the proposed text amendments. Due to the complexity of the issues related to the proposed text amendments and Staffs belief that the issues both directly and indirectly related to the proposed text amendments, and possible text amendment alternatives, require additional discussion and deliberation by the Planning and Environmental Commission, The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented by the applicants and the public, provides Staff with clear direction as to the gathering of any additional information deemed necessary for evaluating this application, provides Staff with clear direction as to the further consideration of alternatives to the proposed text amendments, and then table this item for further discussion at its next regularly scheduled public hearing on Monday, April 14, 2003. II. [DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Vicki Pearson, et-al., are proposing text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two- Family Residential (R), Two - Family Prima rylSecondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts. The specific proposed text amendments are as follows: The proposed text amendments are as follows: 0 (deletions are shown in s# are shown bold) Article 12 -6A: Hillside Residential (HR) District 12 -6A -8. Density Control: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site_ .gy Qocrrlc�nti I rin � G id nf�ial__Feer/I Fe h e fe4e,, in c rn� nl� flo eF each -Site: 7 a I V eR ' z ( S gaa e feet of r.rn rn n �tf{� ♦F� l° ilc�pf F�rf f�F � LYbH ei4e hun r ( ' 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 `1 ire - Y { eti°} sir the first Ayepty nnn thn re a'n / seven u r dre fa e h p a 7 4 err - - feet o f- site -ane p /us _ "I M I •� '? +„ -r1 'nn to th a above { rrr iailnr- 1rad ties /if'>51 naiara f ©oh of p si ro sir�nnti n l, l eer -s � -- �c��alY - be pe rr d4or - .ea - Gh_a - welli -u Aft: 0 3-O^ -iny s4e n p f?7i'afPrl vn�__t+�en /'l l�f7�- Fll=- I- fn rs- Q"+- r� enf.+ !•d-o r-flt- .�- Frl�c� i-no e xseed ease feet -of g; ess 2 I rft.t Y ls ur 'sli'^ ii � QC - G� R "�'bd4t ded / enn ,./ ta m fih main Gf n " r r - 9 unit may Q in c - r #egFa te d4PtG , the - Pain dwelling -- j44 t -o -n om rca - be - k4te E{r 4i•n4 iA4hin " T araQ e tr Lln fin rr film main snit , tr rrn but h not __ n nnnarate freestanding ntrrre Article 12 -6B: Single - Family Residential (SFR) District 12 -6B -8: Density Control: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site. R f�rncc LJeoirl.�nt;aP C1r..•,r elan• c vrvrrrr 4: Tk►e follewFir�g rasss rt�sido tia�€leerar ✓GRF- t l h rm eaGh e - �g r n o -- , El area ✓f [7014 {n� ea ef?e -. � r�.rrc ' { ireed ✓ C; o �)- �SE� CS C/r - firs ri r rv� ti le �Q �� hund r.0D r�rrrrnrn fnnfin sit e--ara r z plus d . , s uare_ feet of grgss ra (leer q n /r- `i41 -/1 I f r o Gh ©ne rip hundred (40 )1 square 6 n;tn o leer twelve th f rs �+�CJf�. TLG T.tT�Z.r - til4L l�L�fTIi twelve r'llV4lsa 2. 1ni r addition t ., t he a e rrr hrr n1 rod ft� t e e five (425) en. n on# e{ fy �'e�'G- r {n �..trc r .1�21P g r- ss-re & id&ntial- floor- are & - 4) 9 h= perpg d- f &r - -e t1we �3. B. No single - family residential lot except those located entirely in the red hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by one single- family dwelling. Article 12 -6C: Two - Family Residential (R) District 12 -6C-8• Density Control: A. Dwelling Units. Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. cdnntinl Clnnr Arn 1. Thera__to4e ring -gr�qs& Fes ep f 9GTar /CRF 1 r•h be nnrrp tted n a, eask -site= c1 TweP4 Ve- `�� }- -SClElar {n - _j r�-cvaT ° r tla� Elv area (G ,r, ea one ,°°'f'r c }Pd red /400Y rquaro feet o f the fir- t fifi9e fi t ae r� nn a rrrrnrn {ant - -F; - site a a plua , F Rl'r 'f n f4 - f4Q' �que feet of gFGs ,Fesi ept ial o lt,ne t uPd /'1 09) nnr pare fe f n{ 4A9 o floe o usaa . � 11 + e ,. r ; - vi arrcZr :�ea -- Q4f�`F - fir - I . �, ] Pot to thousa ]Ll_(1( 9)-s ,are rent of seta aroma =�-s r 3 1, e ._ Five (5) square f nt of nrnnn rn n �d,e,��ia l fleeF aFea /r_' F, 1 fn s -e�e, f 6��rua v -feet of site - ar ea - iFt- esess- 9444y thcr 2. in C1{'ditiGP49 t , f6urh re d -A epty fiv , 1 n (, r f eet o nrnnn rnni.,fin -ti"I { .-.r /(_'C7 s, t e1FmittC`tl4er �4 dwell v B. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of wee s subsection A and-B of this Section, a Type 1 employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Any Type 1 employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing Type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a Type It employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet or greater. Article 12 -6D: Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District 12 -6D -8: Density Control: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. TTJr[`l'TVTITi �iJT �i rt`t'I LIJ � l TJI � � _rpp Yn� 1 - T f b esid e 'fi�l flnnr rnn �� � 11 1 r erm itt rE} rrrr`vrn�orr Qreer - (� �� ci aatrtt for a. n4, five ( ) gi4aFe nrden floor nrnn (G A 1 ., ,��/ ,�,,.��, .. feet-o gross r Rtii ���� RF ,� eaGh Gne4wP4r&,d -(400) square fee et- of-the Ar& f� -peen .quern f- feet n;t•°+ vrc_a e+x-pf�— kl. Ten (10) s quare -fe {} nrnnn reni tia1 1 fogT k , "/ I 'e /} C �/�/�} LD - ­n � -�., } Jll nrYZn n P o r vltc°. - resn nmr fi'ffn thous�a d ( + & 15,0 , t , S � 4 +, c, n-G tve Geeel thiy tho u-san d ar e kQet- -bit�,- ar-eaT pius G- r roc r � SQ# ate -fRe { r, n l- 7�tltJr-Y" F a- {G R-F Iti rr i,j f �ve&a -Gh-F PeF t}und (� - J C [ �a er o f site area ire n irks o.usand (39,0 II SrJ SE� e -tf'er �s n ea { 1„ rfre -! i.. nr,fif fi4n /�1 "7 �_nrr el rca {nn n . r1 adprQrft � tC � - t 1 � � ) 2 � - r y Y ,� ` y . , c�, �. � � ��, y, ��, ss Fe'sJde4*a�tloe ' rni �a - shalt -t7 p epgfi rtted {,nr ea h-allawable dwell in +t: -( B. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provision of sectiep-s subsection A and-B of this Section, a Type 1 employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of leas than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Any Type 1 employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing 4 Type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a Type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet or greater. Article 12 -6E: Residential Cluster (RC) District 12-6E -8: Density Control. A. 6 ss e sl a t+al- F- r la 7 er- l rea =N9t me+ ( � +- ��„tTven"Y f-�e ( ,ti fe &t-e f gross ra c irl a 'tFatit f � � �/ J / A�} tTa7f n ��u� f�}r �h +�yr}¢t d' a- f �v'G)_squ'ar o f ftltida+ !e sitc videL-,, `e'E`Y'e ver , th einnl,e = fami GOP4F ur ted in the residengal bi d13'-tr-F c*l� -�I1 l.n nnfiH. -,.i' tf�°t - ddf finn -sl Ave h� 4n✓dra d4w�fiva �2.6�s fE �r��� --rt. Wi lder} t- ia' r- floF�r� p� - se,�5tr{IStB� d wn!r r it- Total density shall not exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area_ A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 9978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. Article 12 -6F; Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF) District 12 -6F -8: Density Control: A. Gre saden-tial -Flee -, 5rea =nl� ar; f ,n +� '�- ' ;� et-O -f gas - reside ia,�- flec� }shame —per fitted- fer—Pasfi One #updr / c� - (10v). fr c- r- et_e f-�b i n -cv to °r - a pPoY4 �,weve4 si n^r�4- fam and two- r Fl elllr�g- ur7Fts st girl tl�e -lew- +t} �:_-s l di h �'�„� rrtttled f -aT;- . dsti r tierraf' tws dre eF fiv /`J °� ccv�syua ro fe et of gr-esn re wf eF & ) s s -Fu nlip Total density shall not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. Article 12 -6G: Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF) District 12 -6G -8: Density Control. 5 1, A. Gress �e&k1e Peer - rea-A1 t f ��sg a -feed of vr- c"�r& &s- re side Foal fleoF a ifea 4 - yndred ��e.,- f�e•�t of hiiilF i eo nron - id�.` ; '.�- rrv`• "r'�ii- �.,I l - . } le Cy tyYiy tCfhr111y u ni ts o ctruc in f rTet YGttt rl enCl Sld °n ictrirt ch�ll_ha en"14"ed to n d 44 4 o 4Ef-F�dred v �..�- rrrcrc�� -r--a ' v twen V 4*_ �1 r v uar f e et n re i rla n ti l finny + ��r4� �ya � r n a - rte. c�rcrc..�-mCi�-nvvr -Cf ff'"'' sepstrue- ted-dwelli -- ° Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a multiple - family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. B. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval, if the project is to be developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. Article 12 -61H: High Density Multiple- Family (HDMF) District 12 -6H -8: Density Control. m- or, lea ci mry� l zv)- sC�EFa of grc r - efft� 1 f7 � noo {mac�rE�2c (G F,A) sh be no r tee, onr+h nna ... UP red'�19°l SquY�I-C- fee -'Vf .n-scrr,at. vr- c. -rr ' + u►ldable- slt ceLarea. /Uot rr�ere at sixty (99) -- ua ra fee gr-�as' . 1 de. n#a�-40 0 r nr� -ea & l,1 perm" no , for v each rtne hu A �e�rr der- pdred etrvri vrr�.� 140 s quar e fe fbuilda c r�c sia a caf"r n v� rrry - cored {tlon" l us ste ed se�t��}ff 42 6H _ thi - s ._,A iGk- - Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shag be counted as one -half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. Article 1261: High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF) District 12 -6H -3: Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the planning and environmental commission) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents of the development, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Banks and financial institutions. 0 �r r , • ,Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services, including, but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA net floor area for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the total aRF=4 net floor area constructed on the property, and C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent 40 properties. Outdoor patios. Public and private schools and educational institutions, including daycare facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Type V1 employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. 12 -6H -3: Conditional Uses A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the H district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Building height. 3. Density control (44GIU g mss r- 6ide nf'ial-fle erarea4 . 7 x Ill's BACKGROUND At its October 14, 2002, and January 27, 2003, public hearings the Planning and Environmental Commission held worksessions to discuss this proposal. Please refer to the attached minutes from the January 27, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing (see Attachment a) and staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 27, 2002 (see Attachment E). For additional information related to the history of GRFA regulations in the Town of Vail and past amendment proposal actions and discussions, please refer to the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated January 27, 2002 (see Attachment E).. DISCUSSION ITEMS The following is a summary of issues related to the proposed text amendments that Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission address: Current GRFA regulations Staff has identified the following as some of the "positives" of the Town's current GRFA regulations in the residential zone districts: • Current GRFA regulations are an effective tool in regulating the density and intensity of residential uses • Current GRFA regulations are an effective tool in regulating the physical bulk and mass of residential buildings • Current GRFA regulations encourage creative architectural design • Current GRFA regulations are a known and accepted quantifier for development potential in Vail Staff has identified the following as some of the "negatives" of the Town's current GRFA regulations in the residential zone districts: • Current GRFA regulations are complex and cumbersome • Current GRFA regulations create additional time and financial costs for homeowners and builders • Current GRFA regulations are costly and time consuming for the Town to administer considering the achieved public benefit • Current GRFA regulations have loop holes that compromise the intent of the regulations • Current GRFA regulations create inequalities between neighbors in the same zone district • Current GRFA regulations have inadvertently encouraged illegal construction • Current GRFA regulations have inadvertently encouraged the illegal elimination of employee housing units Proposed text amendments Staff has identified the following as some of the "positives" of the proposed text amendments to the GRFA regulations in the residential zone districts: • Simplifies the Town's development standards and review process • Create incentives for redevelopment and upgrade of existing properties • Reduces the incentive for illegal construction 0 • 1.1 t .- t • Reduces the incentive for illegal employee housing unit elimination • Reduces development standard inequalities between neighbors Staff has identified the following as some of the "negatives" of the proposed text amendments to the GRFA regulations in the residential zone districts: • Potential increase in building bulk and mass • Potential increase in residential density and intensity of use • May allow for the legal elimination of existing employee housing units • Potential change to neighborhood character due to increased bulklmass and density /intensity • Development potential Is less quantifiable • Direct and indirect impact to other Town development regulations Other Town regulations affected by the proposed text amendments Staff has identified the following as some of the existing Town regulations that will be affected by the proposed text amendments to the GRFA regulations in the residential zone districts: • Chapter 12 -2, Vail Town Code, Definitions • Chapter 12 -10, Vail Town Code, Off Street Parking and Loading • Chapter 12 -13, Vail Town Code, Employee Housing • Chapter 12 -14, Vail Town Code, Supplemental Regulations (ie home occupations) • Chapter 12 -15, Vail Town Code, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) • Chapter 12 -18, Vail Town Code, Non- Conforming Sites, Uses, Structures, and Site Improvements • Title 14, Vail Town Code, Development Standards Handbook • Adopted Special Development Districts Alternative text amendments for consideration Staff has identified the following as possible alternatives to the proposed GRFA text amendments: • No change to the current GRFA regulations • Revise the current GRFA calculation methodology (i.e. simplified definition of GRFA, consolidate current GRFA credits, eliminate basement spaces from GRFA calculations, change GRFA to a straight percentage of a lot size, create a single maximum GRFA cap applied to all lots, etc.) • Eliminate GRFA limitations and revise other existing development standards (i.e. adjust allowable site coverage, adjust minimum landscape area requirements, implement additional design guidelines, etc.) • Eliminate GRFA and implement Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards • Eliminate GRFA and implement volumetric standards V. 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. 9 I L 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; and 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 or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be 49 appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approval /approval with conditionsldenial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission andlor Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 10 0 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. Vi. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code) Chapter 12 -1: Title., Purpose and Applicability 12 -1 -2: PURPOSE: A. General These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Article 12 -613: Single- Family Residential (SFR) district 12 -6B -1: PURPOSE: The single - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The single - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6C: Two - Family Residential (R) district 12 -6C -1: PURPOSE: The two - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single family or two- family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The two - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6D: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (P1S) district 12 -6D -1: PURPOSE: > The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single - family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two- family primary /secondary residential district is intended 11 to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6E: Residential Cluster (RC) District 12- 6E -1: PURPOSE: The residential cluster district is intended to provide sites for single - family, two - family, and multiple - family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (6) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The residential cluster district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6F: Low Density Multiple - Family Residential (LDMF) District 12 -6F -1: PURPOSE: The low density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for single - family, two - family and multiple - family dwellings at a density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district The low density multiple- family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with low density occupancy, and to maintain the 40 desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Article 12 -6G: Medium Density Multiple - Family Residential (MDMF) District 12 -6G -1: PURPOSE: The medium density multiple - family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre; together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The medium density multiple - family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. Article 12 -6H: High Density Multiple - Family Residential (HDMF) District 12 -6H -1: PURPOSE: The high density multiple - family district is intended to provide sites for multiple - family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple- family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as 12 conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district. Article 12 -61: Housing (H) District 12 -£1 -1: PURPOSE. The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12 -1 -2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. Town of Vail Land Use Plan Chapter ii — Land Use Plan Goals/Policies 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The qualify of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing development areas (infill areas). 4.2 Increased density in the Care areas is acceptable as long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 13 Town Council Mission Statement We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally- sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. VII. 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 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. B. The Planning and 'Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 14 0 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION At this time, the Community Development Department is not making a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposed text amendments. Due to the complexity of the issues related to the proposed text amendments and Staff's belief that the issues both directly and indirectly related to the proposed text amendments, and possible text amendment alternatives, require additional discussion and deliberation by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Therefore, the Community Development Department does not recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission make a recommendation to the Town Council at this time for the proposed text amendments. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the evidence and testimony presented by the applicants and the public, provides Staff with clear direction as to the gathering of any additional information deemed necessary for evaluating this application, provides Staff with clear direction as to the further consideration of alternatives to the proposed text amendments, and then table this item for further discussion at its next regularly scheduled public hearing on Monday, April 14, 2003. However, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council at this time for the proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple - Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple- Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, Staff recommends that the Commission's decision be based upon the review of the criteria in Section IV 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. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Notice S. Vicinity Map C. Applicant's Statement D. January 27, 2003, PEC public hearing minutes (excerpt) E. Staff memorandum to PEC dated January 27, 2003 F. Correspondence 15 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Attachment: A 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 Vail Town Code on March 24, 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 proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -66-2, 12 -68 -3, 12 -60-2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type 11 employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about these proposals are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department office, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation held in the Town of Vail Community Development Department office and the site visits that precede the public hearing. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for additional information. This notice published in the Vail Daily on March 7, 2003. • 1 r ? o. Tl WNV OF PAIL ' 4 �mb C � 8 Sgt qa a eR :Q �> G� C N `4 m G7 w --! y = r m I z Q N �1 z r n o _z2 cn ❑ m -n C P K 0 co O C mz -n moCZ rn -0 m C} m >m m��m m* zm b y r w ` f r a w � � a 2 4a m � � f a a x 6 Q A a a a c C z m M CD S b p 4 5 b ti � a 7r 4 d t !1 W O Q O v, 14 O 1 0 Q Ri M N Q Q to 0 rtk m a a u I< CD c o M Q M t� t.. Q u a c3 R. CD rip = N Q, m 2 rt � N Al rih yy D rL C) 1'? Q Lq N N (D a N CL (D (M ' m -- (a Q Q > N y n O Y � 4 C m �FI •4+ y A i Jl. r*P't r a m m m D S Bmv Cm ni q a ��pm Imo gr 9 m c o )a 8 :Iuewgoelly o a O a Q 0 x CL W 0 3 fD a 0 m m 0 i z m r y Attachment: C, Vicki Pearson 285 Bridge St. Vail, Co. 81657 January 31, 2003 In regards to: Clarify Application & Goals Russ Forrest, PEC, & Council Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Vail, Co. 81 657 Dear Russ Forrest, PEC, & Council: This letter is to clarify the goals I, Vicki Pearson, the primary applicant for the request to modify and 1 or eliminate Cross Residential Floor Area regulations, and the co- applicants are interested in achieving. • Our primary goals are to simplify the process that is currently in place, and create greater flexibility with in the four walls for: 1. Single Family 2. Duplex 3. Multifamily. We would like to keep commercial developments separate and research them at a later date. I appreciate your time and effort. Respectfully, Vicki Pearson • l d lZ£SO� O 9 'ON /� l '1S /Lti: 1 SOON 2 WOO HH2 Attachment: D The motion passed by a vote of 6 -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. 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, PIS 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. 3 Approved 2/1 0103 Steve Riden stated that the tools for controlling bulk and mass are already there in the form of height and setback/site 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. 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. 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 lightfshadows 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 0 Approved 211 0103 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 buildable. He said we have to look at the parking, EHU's, and other issues to see how we want to tweak things. He said 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 Attachment: E 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: Planner: I. SUMMARY Vicki Pearson, et.al. Russ Forest / Bill Gibson 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. Ill. 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). Ill. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Commission is not being asked to take any formal positions on this application at this time. Howeuer, staff has identified two fundamental issues pertinent to this proposal that we believe should be discussed: • �i TOWN O wwL k 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 0 A. October 14, 2002, PEC public hearing minutes excerpt B. Staff memorandum to PEC dated October 14, 2002 C. Additional reference documents I* 2 Attachment: A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES EXCERPT Monday, October 14, 2002 (Approved 10/28/02) 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. Attachment: B 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 14, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications and /or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regards thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest 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 is recommendation is provided at this time. 11. 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. Ill. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1959, enacted the Town of Vail's first comprehensive zoning regulations. These regulations included a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for residential and commercial development. There were no building height or site coverage regulations at this time. In 1973, the Town of Vail adopted comprehensive revisions to the zoning Regulations, whereby a definition of GRFA was established. Building height, site coverage, and building bulk control regulations were added to multi- family and higher density zone districts. In 1976, revisions were again made to the Zoning Regulations, which included changes to the calculation of M� TDYiN YAYAIL Y building height, minimum distance between buildings, and a graduated scale for the determination of allowable GRFA. In addition, a maximum GRFA of 4,000 sq. ft. was established for duplex structures. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1977, reduced allowable density in most residential zone districts. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1978, reduced allowable building height in the lower density residential zone districts, and reduced allowable density and GRFA in the multiple family zone districts. The 1980's saw multiple changes to the GRFA requirements. In 1980, the definition of GRFA was modified and the garage credit was added. The definition of height was modified to the definition we use today and height was increased from 30 ft. to 33 ft. for sloping roofs. Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1982, again modified the definition of GRFA and added various credits for mechanical spaces, airlocks, and storage. In 1985, the "250 ordinance" was adopted, allowed for additions of 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to homes at least five years old. In 1988, the "250 Ordinance" was amended to allow for additions of 250 sq. ft. for a complete demo /rebuild. In 1991, an proposed ordinance to repeal the "250 Ordinance" was denied. Oridnance 15, Series of 1991, modified the definition of GRFA, and consolidated the various credits to an additional 425 credit. In 1997, the Interior Conversion Ordinance was adopted, which allows units which have maxed out on allowable GRFA, to convert existing crawl spaces or attic space to GRFA. In 1998, the Interior Conversion Ordinance was expanded to include multiple - family structures. A similar proposal to eliminate GRFA was considered in 1996 and 1997, as a result of several requests from home owners to fill in vaulted spaces and crawl spaces. The Town of Vail hired Braun and Associates to analyze the GRFA regulations and evaluate other tools for controlling bulk and mass. Two staff memos and a report on GRFA are provided in Attachment A from the 1996 & 1997 GRFA review. At this time, staff recommended eliminating GRFA while reducing site coverage on large lots (over 20,000 sq. ft.) and providing the Design Review Board with improved criteria for reviewing the bulk and mass of residential properties. The conclusion of the Town Council was to allow for interior conversions for structures constructed prior to 1997. The interior conversion ordinance allows people to fill in crawl space and vaulted areas in home built prior to 1997. The intent was that this would reduce illegal construction. Staff has received numerous applications for interior conversions since 1997. However, illegal construction and the creation of illegal floor area continues. In addition, owners with homes - constructed after 1997 are asking for the same opportunity to fill in their vaulted and crawl spaces. Staff has provided a few sample calculations of how GRFA is calculated today: Zoning: Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 17,500 sq. ft. 15,000 x .25 = 3,750 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. 17,500 — 15,000 = 2,500 2 „500 x .10 = 250 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. up to 30,000 sq. ft. 3,750 + 250 = 4000 sq. ft. 0 2 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 forthe entire site. Zoning: Primary /Secondary Lot Size: 11,400 sq. ft. 11,400 x.25 = 2850 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. Primary: 2850 + 425 = 3275 sq. ft Primary side gets all of the GRFA plus a 4,000 x.10 = 400 425 mechanical credit Secondary: not permitted Not allowed a secondary unit as lot size is 3950 + 250 = 4,200 sq. ft less than 14,000 sq. ft. Not eligible for second 425 credit. Total: 3275 sq. ft. Total GRFA for the entire site. Zoning: Single Family Lot Size: 16,500 House originally constructed in 1982 0 12,500 x .25 = 3,125 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. 16,500 — 12,500 = 4,000 4,000 x.10 = 400 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. 3,125 + 400 + 425 = 3,950 sq. ft. GRFA plus 425 mechanical credit 3950 + 250 = 4,200 sq. ft Total GRFA for the site plus the "250 bonus" IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: - Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for forwarding a - recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Town Council of a text amendment. The Planning & Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested tent amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 3 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission deems applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority of a text amendment. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /approval with conditions /denial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the teat amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 11 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 DOCUiVIENTS AND REGULATIONS Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7. Further, Section 12 -3 -713 states, in part, that, An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. Title 12, Zoning Regulations Section 12- 15-1, Vail Town Code, states that the purpose of GRFA is: This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential is 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 orsite improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to the addition. • 5 a 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 0 such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year -round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in -kind services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. Town of Vail Land Use Plan The land use plan primarily quantifies housing types and quantities. Specific goals that may pertain to this amendment include: Goal 1.3: The quality of development should be maintain and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 5.3: Affordable housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. L� I Goal 5A 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 text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable.. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Necessary Findings Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. .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. 4) 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 primarylsecondary 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 91 ft. in the air. These types of actions are not necessarily illegal but are discouraged and prevented when possible. Staff believes that GRFA is extremely difficult to enforce and difficult to understand and apply to applications. Should GRFA be eliminated in all zone districts? The Lionshead Zone Districts (1 &2) have essentially phased out the importance of GRFA in controlling bulk and mass. GRFA has also been relaxed in the Public Accommodation Zone District. However, if GRFA were eliminated in the Public Accommodation (PA) District there could be some unintended consequences. For example the PA zone district states that "70% of the added GRFA shall be devoted to accommodation units or for fraction fee club units. Retail is limited to 10% of the total floor area in the PA zone district. Special Development Districts (SDD) that have been approved reference specific floor areas. The Hillside Residential Zone District has specific floor area ratios incorporated into the covanents for the subdivision. if GRFA were eliminated there would be no need to have a 60140 split in the Primary/Secondary District. Without GRFA, this district would be identical to the Two Family Residential District. Staff would suggest that changes applied to the Single Family, Two Family Residential, and Prima ryfSecondary 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 9 recommend an additional site coverage bonus on larger lots, However, EHUs could still be incentivized by allowing an additional deed restricted unit on a property. Furthermore, an additional incentive would be to allow that an EHU could be sold or leased. Currently, only lots under 14,000 square feet can have an EHU that can be sold separately. Another major issue is how to assess employee generation for commercial projects. If GRFA was eliminated, staff would still propose calculating employee generation using gross floor area for different uses in a commercial project. How would parking be calculated? Currently parking is based on floor area. If GRFA were eliminated, staff would propose using a gross floor area that is calculated by the building team or simply using a parking requirement for a unit type. In other words, a Two Family Residential unit may simply be required to have 2 parking spaces per unit. However, a commercial property may still need parking based on floor area. However, a gross floor area could be used for those calculations. Would eliminating GRFA create inequity issues? A political issue related to GRFA is that it is now a commodity. Home buyers purchase units based on the available GRFA. Neighbors rely on how much GRFA exists or does not exist on adjacent properties. Also home owners that have constructed homes with GRFA may consider it unfair that individuals building without GRFA have an unfair opportunity that they did not. What are the impacts to nonconforming lots? 0 Many lots in Vail are nonconforming because they were subdivided under Eagle County jurisdiction and then subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail.. In West Vail certain lots received an additional 250 square foot GRFA bonus because they were nonconforming. If GRFA was eliminated, Vail would still have many lots that are still non conforming with respect to lot size, site coverage, density, etc. Therefore elimination of GRFA most likely would not generate additional development rights on existing non - conforming lots, ATTACHMENTS A. GRFA MEMOs From 1996 and 1997 B. GRFA and EHU sections of the Town Code. C. Email from Vail Fire Department 10 0 Attachment GRFA MEMOS From 1995 and 1997 • 11 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this worksession is to review the existing gross residential floor area (GRFA) system and possible alternatives. In addition, staff will review input from two public meetings that occurred on October 30th and 31st along with input from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff is requesting that the Council consider whether any alternatives can be eliminated from the review process at this point so that further analysis of pros and cons can be focused on the most preferred alternatives. As a ground rule, the Town did commit to keeping the "no action" alternative (i.e., keep the existing GRFA system) in the analysis until a final recommendation is presented to PEC and the Town Council. II. BACKGROUND: The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: 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 designers/builders)? Attached is a copy of a background paper that Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared which addresses the following (See attachment 1): 1) Reoccurring concerns /issues with the existing system, 2) Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, 3) Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass, 4) History of GRFA in Vail, 5) Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and 6) Analysis of five alternatives. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31 st, Torn 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. Ill. 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). Torn 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). 1ep Descri 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) it any of the alternatives can be eliminated in order to narrow down the review process. Step 4: Complete analysis of pros & cons of alternative approaches. December Step 5: PEC and Town Council.decide on a preferred alternative January 13 (PEC) January 14 (Council) Step 6: Take action to implement preferred action, if any. January /February Note: Depends on which alternative is chosen IV. SUMMARY FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS: A complete summary of the input from the two public meeting will be presented at the November 26th worksession (See attachment 2). The following are key points people tended to agree or disagree on. Major Areas of Acireemen : * Some change to GRFA is needed. The appropriate level of change was debated at length. ' One area of general agreement regarding the existing system was that the final product (size, scale, appearance) usually looks pretty good. " Better design standards for the Design Review Board are needed. However, these standards should not be so inflexible that they stifle creative design- * Staff time is not an issue. However, time requirements for applicants to explain the GRFA system to clients is an issue. 40 * Many felt (not all) that interior changes (particularly for owner occupied homes) should only require a building permit and not count towards their GRFA allowance. Major Areas of Disagreement: * There was significant disagreement on whether the GRFA allowance should be increased across the board. Some felt that to be competitive with down valley real estate markets we needed to increase GRFA allowances across the board. Others thought that homes in certain areas of Vail (Rockledge and Ptarmigan) were already too big. Some felt that relatively minor changes to the GRFA system could address their concerns, while others felt that GRFA needed to be eliminated and that site coverage, height, and design controls should be used to control mass and bulk. * Several people felt that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass. Many of the developers, designers, and real estate agents felt that site coverage, height, and the Design Review Board currently control bulk and mass, not GRFA. There were exceptions in that several architects felt that the GRFA system results in creative design solutions. V. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INPUT: The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) also had mixed feelings on the existing GRFA policy and possible alternatives. Four members felt that alternative three (eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. The PEC felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines are needed. One commissioner that supported alternative 3, felt that at least 2 architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA should continue. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4. Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that home owners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. There was also interest in one of the alternatives that the public identified of tailoring development standards to the site constraints on a lot. Breckenridge's performance - based development system was referred to as one method of dealing with mass and bulk on sites with varying site constraints. Another issue discussed at the worksession was whether homes in Vail are too large, too small, or generally appropriate for the site. The Commission generally felt that the market will drive where "trophy" homes are located. Therefore, there are certain areas of Town where large homes may be appropriate and other owner occupied areas of Town where they are not appropriate. The Commission was very sensitive to the need to keep families living in Vail and to try to accommodate needs to expand homes for owner occupied dwelling units. 1--ij ATTACHMENT 1 49 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 back = ground 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 Controllin g 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- coneerns.will be identified by the community during this process. Four assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this process: 0 GRFA ANALYSIS /PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. I I ) Public involvement is a key element of this process and final decisions regarding GRFA 0 will be made by the Vail Town Council will input from the community, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town staff; 2) Some mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass, or zoning regulations which control the size and shape of buildings are necessary; 3) This process will address single- family, duplex and primary /secondary residential development only; 4) The "no action" alternative, or maintaining the current GRFA system, is a viable alternative. II. BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROL Guidelines and regulations addressing building height, bulk, and mass play a large role in determining a community's character, liveability and sense of place. Simply stated, bulk and mass refers to the overall size, shape and scale of a building. Bulk and mass controls address many of the factors that determine the spatial and visual qualities of a community. Building bulk and mass controls also help protect property values by providing some assurances of the type and intensity of development that may occur on a site or throughout a community. These regulations establish the design parameters and framework in which architects, developers, review staff and boards can work. The importance of controlling building size and spatial relationships was recognized long ago. Early zoning regulations provided for adequate access to light and air and limited the intensity of use. The Standard Zoning EnabluzgAcl granted local legislative bodies the authority to regulate and restrict: the height, number of stories, size, shape and placement of buildings and other structures; the percentage of the lot that may be covered by buildings; the size of yards or other open spaces; and the use of land to control population density, open space, and access to daylight and air, and to limit congestion and over crowdedness. The act places this authority under the police powers of the community used for protecting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. OBJECTIVES OF BULK AND MASS CONTROLS Communities establish height, bulk and intensity regulations to achieve a broad range of objectives: • Ensuring adequate access to daylight and air by limiting building height and controlling the setback of buildings from street and property lines. • Limiting congestion by controlling intensity of use, traffic, population, etc.. • Creating meaningful open spaces and landscape areas on site for aesthetics and character • Maintaining. a balance.between building scale -and the surrounding environment • Preserving a sense of place, scale and community character • Defining the proportions and character of public spaces and streets • Defining urban form and/or rural character • Preserving solar access to adjacent structures and sites GRFA ANALYSIWRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. - 2 0 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 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 Requirernents - Setbacks from front, side and rear lot lines establish open space between buildings and ensure all buildings have adequate access to light and air. Setbacks influence the spatial relationship between buildings, but do not directly affect the bulk and mass of individual buildings. 2. Building Height Building height directly controls building bulk and mass by regulating the maximum number of feet or stories of a building. Height restrictions typically vary by zoning district. While a variety of methods are typically used to calculate building height, height is typically measured to the top of parapets or ridge lines or to the mid- point of ridge and 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 d Milximun] 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— storyfvaulted 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 Vail's existing system of- controlling the -bulk -rind 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 1) Site Coverage Maximum allowable site coverage in Vail's single- family, two family and primary/secondary districts is 20% (allowable site coverage is limited to 15% on lots with greater than 30 %® slope). The amount of allowable site coverage is directly proportional to the size of a lot. For example, on a 15,000 square foot lot 3,000 square feet can be covered by buildings and other improvements and on a 10,000 square foot lot only 2,000 square feet of site coverage is permitted.. Site coverage includes the total horizontal area of any building, carport, arcade, or covered walkway as measured from perimeter walls or columns at or above grade and any roof overhang, eave, or covered patio or stair that extends more than four feet from the building.. 2) Building Height Allowable building height in the single - family, two family and primary /secondary districts is 30' for buildings with flat roofs and 33' for buildings with sloping roofs. Height is measured from the top of the roof ridge to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. Measuring height to the most restrictive of existing or finished grade requires buildings to "step" with natural grades and in doing so reduce the mass of a building. This definition also prevents the alteration of existing grade in order to build -up or elevate a site. Allowable building heights are uniform in the single- family, duplex and primary /secondary zone districts, allowable height does not vary based on the size of a lot. 3) GRFA The Town's definition of GRFA establishes limitations on the amount of floor area only. GRFA does not regulate how interior spaces are used (i.e., GRFA does not limit the number of bedrooms) nor does GRFA limit building mass created by vaulted spaces. Maximum allowable GRFA in the single - family, two family and primary /secondary districts is 25 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of total lot area. For example, a 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 3,750 square feet of GRFA. In addition, 425 square feet of GRFA is permitted for each allowable unit and a garage credit of up to 600 square feet per unit is also allowed. The 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 VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM The following chronology summarizes the major changes that have been made to the GRFA system over the past 27 years: Ord. 7, 1969 This ordinance enacted the Town's first comprehensive zoning regulation. FAR, or "floor area ratio" was defined and maximum floor area ratios were established for residential development and commercial development. The single - family and duplex zone district permitted up to .33:1 FAR and also required a minimum floor area of 900 per unit. Vail's original zoning code did not include building hei ht 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. 1�1 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. Qrd. 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 car finished grade, increased building height to 33' for sloping roofs in single- family, duplex and p/s districts. Ord. 41,19$_2 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 ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT 0 Braun Associates, Inc. 6 4D Qrd. 36, 1988 Allowing for use of 250 Ordinance in cases where the renovation of the dwelling involves the "complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof'. Ord. 9, 1991 Proposed ordinance to repeal the 250 ordinance -was denied. Ord- 15, 1991 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 1984 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 ANALYSISIPRF-LIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 7 Bulk and Mass Controls • 1~1 i° Area Limitations The Town does not limit the floor area of homes in outlying residential areas. • Site Coverage The Town does not have formal site coverage regulations. The area of a site covered by buildings is regulated by platted building envelopes or minimum setbacks, and minimum landscape /natural open space requirements. Building Height Building height is regulated by a guideline that "discourages" homes over two stories. • 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 overage size of these units has been 4,029 square feet, exclusive of garages. The Town staff indicated that from their standpoint the review process for single - family development is relatively smooth for all concerned. The review process for single- family homes involves staff review and hearings with the Planning Commission and Town Council. Municipality of Whistler, British Columbia This analysis pertains to Whistler's typical single- family zone districts (RS- I and RS -2). Whistler includes a number of developments approved by "land use contract" (i.e. a Planned Unit Development) which have site specific regulations that often allow more or unlimited floor area in single- family homes. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations Floor area of single - family lots is limited to 325 square meters (3,496 square feet) or 35 % of the lot area, whichever is less. A garage credit of 56 meters (600 square feet) is allowed and the definition of floor area includes all interior space, excluding crawl space, measured to the outside of exterior walls. Site Coverage Site coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area and includes the footprint of the building only as measured at exterior walls. • Building Hei ht Buildings are limited to 7.6 meters (25 feet) and is measured from grade to the mean level between the eave and the ridge. GRFA ANALYSIS /PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 8 • Design Review The Town does not have a design review process. Other Considerations Based on comments from the planning staff, the type and intensity of single - family development varies. The floor area of some, but not all, homes is "mixed" out. The staff does not perceive the lack of design review to be an issue with regard to bulk and mass or the overall aesthetics of the community. The review of floor area limitations is not an issue due to the "black and white" nature of how floor area is defined. The Town's by -laws do not allow for variance requests to density or floor area. Town of Aspen, Colorado Aspen has experienced a pattern very similar to Vail's with regard to redevelopment within its residential neighborhoods. This analysis pertains to Aspen's Moderate Density Residential Zone district (R -15), which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Bulk and Mass Controls • Floor Area Limitations Floor area is limited by a graduate scale based on lot size. A 15,000 square foot lot would be permitted 4,500 square feet of floor area. Floor area includes all horizontal surfaces measured to the exterior face of exterior walls. Totally'sub -grade basement spaces and up to 5001 square feet for garages are excluded from calculation as floor area. In certain cases exterior decks and balconies are counted as floor area. The volume of vaulted space is also addressed by applying a multiplier to floor space that has a floor plat greater than 10'. Site Coverage There are no site coverage limitations .in these zone districts. Landscape requirements essentially establish a limit on site coverage. Building Height Building height is limited to 25' and is measured from natural grade to the mean height of the cave and ridge, provided that the ridge not exceed 30'. Design" Review The Town does implement a design review process that addresses all aspects of building design and site planning. Other Considerations Two years ago the Town went through a "monster home" debate. This debate concerned the demo of small Victorian homes and construction of larger homes. The issue was primarily over the potential loss of neighborhood character that was resulting from these types of redevelopments. Resolution of the issue was to incorporate design guidelines specific to building bulk and mass and building scale. These guidelines require-homes to haves composition of additive forms which include a "primary mass" and "secondary mass" and also mandate building offsets. The purpose of these design guidelines is to avoid large, box -like structures and encourage structures that reflect a composition of smaller building forms. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 9 Deer 'Valley Resort, Utah While Deer Valley is located in Park City, development is regulated by the Deer Valley PUD. The City's Residential Development District (RD) provides the underlying zoning for single - family development at Deer Valley. In many cases the development regulations for subdivisions within Deer Valley vary from the RD standards. For example, in many cases building envelopes supersede setback requirements and building heights may vary on a lot by lot basis depending upon site specific considerations, Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations There is no floor area limitation in the RD zone district and many of the early subdivisions in Deer Valley did not include floor area limitations. Recently the Town and developer have worked together to establish maximum floor areas for each newly platted lot. Allowable floor areas vary depending upon site conditions and range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet. Floor area includes the area of a building enclosed by surrounding exterior walls and any portion of a covered or enclosed deck or patio. Basement space is excluded from floor area calculations. Site Coverage Unless specified by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, there are no site coverage limitations. Most recent subdivisions in Deer Valley include building envelopes for each lot which essentially establish a maximum site coverage area. Building Height Unless specified otherwise by the PUD or a specific subdivision plat within Deer Valley, building height is limited to 28'. Height is measured from natural grade to a point mid -way between the 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 ANALYSIS/PRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 10 • Site Coverage -There are no site coverage limitations in any of Steamboat Spring's low density residential zone districts. • Building 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 Creep Resort, Colorado Development regulations in Beaver Creek are established by the Beaver Creek PUD Guide and are implemented by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board and the Eagle County Community Development Department. Bulk and Mass Controls Floor Area Limitations With the exception of the new Strawberry Park neighborhood, Beaver Creels does not limit the floor area of single - family homes. Site Coverage Site coverage limits are established by the size of platted building envelope that have been established for each lot. Building footprints and related improvements must be located within platted building envelopes. Building Height Buildings are limited to 35' in height, however, height is determined by averaging the distance from grade to a mid -point between the ridge and eave at various points around a building. This averaging systems has allowed for portions of buildings to exceed 35' by significant margins. Beaver Creek recently amended building regulations to limit the absolute height of a building to no more than 54'. 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 Ketchu n 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 10,89I 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. • Desibn 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 7,0010 square foot homes are not uncommon. There is a concern in the Sun Valley area with "trophy homes ", however this concern is primarily in areas of Blaine County located outside of Town boundaries. VI. CONCEPTUAL BULK AND MASS ALTERNATIVES Five conceptual alternatives to the Town's existing GRFA system are described below. These alternatives are assessed relative to how each responds to the three primary issues of concern with the existing GRFA system. Zoning implications with regard to the implementation of the alternative, potential pros and cons of the alternative and other issues to consider regarding the alternative are also discussed. These five conceptual- alteniatives aro not intended -to-be a finite list. of the only alternatives that may be suitable for Vail's. Rather, they represent a range of alternatives that are intended to provide a framework for discussions with the community, Planning Commission and Town Council. It is anticipated that other alternatives or variations of alternatives listed below will be identified during this process. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 12 L� C onceptual 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 once tual Alternative ##2 - "Conversion of Interior ace" • 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 Implication: This alternative would have no affect on other elements of the Town's existing zoning regulations. Response to Three Identified. Issues Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Could prevent illegal conversions and ensure that work is done in conformance with buildin code standards. • Could increase the number of building applications and the amount of staff time required to implement the GRFA system. • This alternative may result in new homes being designed such that new interior space could be converted to GRFA in the future (i.e. vaulted spaces are designed in new construction to allow for future conversion to GRFA), the end result of which would be buildings designed as if there-were-no GRFA -limit at all.- - • Consideration should be given to not allowing the conversion of existing garage space to GRFA. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINAR"Y REPORT is 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 Im. 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. 0 Response to Three Identified Issues Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. Does address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • Elimination of GRFA limits may encourage applicants to maximize site coverage and building height, resulting in largelbox -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. Objective of Alternative The objective of this alternative is to not count floor area that is not seen (i.e. space below grade). Zoning Implications This alternative would not create conflicts with other sections of the zoning code. Response to Three Identified Issues • Does not address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does begin to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. • • Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. 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 Volurnetrie 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. Qbjectiye 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 £0%/40% split for primary/secondary developments would be necessary. Response to Three Identified Issues • Does address the issue of whether GRFA is an effective or necessary mechanism for controlling building bulk and mass. • Does not to address the "appropriateness" issue of the Town regulating the use of space within the exterior walls of a home, particularly the use of interior space within existing homes. Does not address the issue of staff and applicant time required to administer the existing GRFA system. Other Considerations • While this may potentially be the most direct, effective way of calculating the bulk and mass of a building, this alternative would not prevent the design of non- descript boxes. • Potentially burdensome process for applicants because it would require all proposals to be done in a CAD format. • Could increase the amount of staff time required to implement the system. • Would need to establish allowable volume of space permitted on a lot. • Have not. identified -any communities which utilize -such a system. GRFA ANALYSISIPRELIMINARY REPORT Braun Associates, Inc. 17 Attachment 2 Issues with Current GRFA System 0 Effectiveness of GRFA Means for Cnntroliym Building Size • Mixed opinions as to whether GRFA is an effective bulk and mass control • Gencral agreement that GRFA is less effective than site coverage and building height 'dine Reautred to Administer Current S stem Little to no concem with staff time required to implement system • Some concern with time required for applicant A ro riaten.es of Regulafing Interior Space • Clear lack of consensus with 16 dappropriatenes4s" issue Discussion lead to other issues, i.e. EHU's, `locals ", etc. at Issues • Is the size of homes being built in Vail appropriate, are there issues with all bulk and mass controls and not just GRFA?? Process should also evaluate GRFA relative to multi - famEy 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 Conceptual Alternative #1 - " Act ion " Description 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 support for this alternative, fairly stung consensus that some action is needed Question is whether system needs to be "tweaked." to be simplified and more "user friendly" or whether wholesale changes are necessary Positives • GSA does control bulk zuid mass • GRFA encourages design creativity • Existing system is predictable, a known commodity • Product (size of homes) has been good • Establishes "value" of property Ne, atives Dees not control bulk and mass GRFA limits design creativity * GRFA doesn't account for vaulted space System is too complex, cumbersome • There must be a problem or we wouldn't be here Conceptual Alternative #Z i "Conversion of Interior S►ace" Description of A1ternati e • Allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided there is no change to bulk and mass of home. Grou p Consennsus = Fairly strong consensus that alternative is positive step but does not go far enough, probably not a permanent solution r- Ositi.ves Addressee biggest problem, allows flexibility with floor' area while not changing bulk and mass of building * Gould encourage stability in local population Could promote safety by eliminating "illegal" conversions = System will remain complex and cumbersome, but end result will be worth trouble Negative Ls 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. Deed to address parking, other zoning issues Possibly allow only for EHT's • Possibly allow only for homes in existence at time ordinance is adopted Conceptual Alternative #3 - "Elirnination of GRFAII Description__ of _Alt grpajiyk Eliminate GRFA, adopt new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass issues such as building fon, off -sets, scale, etc, Group Consensus • Fair amount of very cautious, L 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 Necd GRFA as part of total package for cunLrulling bulk and mass Design review process is inconsistent, can not provide adequate level of control Design review standards will limit creativity Eliminating GRFA will allow forlencourage large, non - descript boxes • Potentially adverse impact on neighborhoods, community character Will place increased responsibility, burden on DRB Issues * Have to study site coverage, height as part of eliminating GRFA, possibly establish graduated scales Ej oneevtu l Alternative 44 - "Eliminate Basement Space.. as GRFA Description of A I ernative • Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude interior space located entirely below grade troin calculation as GR.FA 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 0 * Makes sense - why calculate /regulate floor area that is not visible N-e atives • Potential loopholes with defining "basement" 0 Doesn't directly address bulk and mass issue • Potential for additional bulk and mass above gradc • 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 r ConcelAual Alternat #5 I'Volum etric ControP Description of .lbernatie * Utilize CAIN to calculate, regulate volume of interior space Group Consensus Could be most effective, accurate control • Feu' to complicated, difficult, burdensome can applicant 40 5 Other Alternatives 1) Increase GRFA ratio 2) Licfease GRFA ratio for smaller lots 3) Don't count GRFA used for EHU's 4) Simplify definition, i.e. elinfuiate all credits anti iutzease ratio 5) Establish bulb and mass controls based on site specific characteristics of lot, i.e. lot size and shape, slope, vegetation, access, etc, and strengthen design guidelines C) Count vaulted space at front end and increase GRFA ratio 0 7) C'orabine proposed Alt. #2 and Alt. #4 8) Establish parking requirement based on number of bedrooms 9) Eliminate GRFA, expand design guidelines, height averaging, evaluate site coverage and height limits, make changes available to permanent local residents only • 1U1HL H.U8 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest I. PURPOSE The purpose of this worksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing GRFA regulations for single family, duplex, and primary /secondary type structures. This memo will describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under each alternative; and will identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each alternative. On March 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 PEG and staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, staff would like to ask for Council's preferred alternative. Once Council decides on a preferred alternative staff ,' will begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code revisions. II. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVEN The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include: A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk; B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers /builders)? The givens for this process include: A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and recommendations from the PEC and staff. B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass. C) This process will only address residential development (single - family, duplex, and primary /secondary type structures). D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative. E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size. F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity. r� L III. BACKGROUND 0 In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which addressed the following • Reoccurring concerns /issues with the existing system, • Objectives of having mass and bulk controls, • Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass, • History of GRFA in Vail, • Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and • Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vail's GRFA system. At the public meetings on October 30th and 31st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings. The PEC reviewed this analysis on November 11, 1996. Four members felt that alternative three (eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. These members felt that if GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines would be needed. One commissioner that supported alternative three, felt that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review Board. The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA is needed. One member felt strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two members were interested in pursuing alternatives 2 and 4 (allow interior modifications and eliminate basement space in GRFA calculations, respectively). Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission that homeowners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels without GRFA being an issue. Council reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority /preference) in more detail: • Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. • Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. • Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and primary /secondary type structures. The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should not significantly increase bulk and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. In addition, several Council members were interested in exploring how vaulted space could be better addressed in the Town's regulations. Attached is a revised analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative could be implemented and issues that would need to be considered prior to implementation. 0 2 IV. PROCESS OVERVIEW The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2) analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are specific steps in the process. Phase I identification of Alternatives 1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September & October, 1996 2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October & and alternatives. 3) Presentation to PEG 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 iml2lemeni alternatives and id the impacts of each alternative 4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January 1996/1997 5) PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997 6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997 i s 7) Council worksession March 11, 1997 8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 1st, 1997 if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession Phase II1 l L e6slative Review of preferred alternative assumes code modifications g) Staff prepares language to modify Town Code April, 1997 9) REC: 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 ID 3 V CURRENT IMPACT OF GRFA AND SITE COVERAGE A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coveraae Gross Residential Floor Area and site coverage are tied to lot area through simple mathematical formulas. GRFA determines how much floor area can exist in a home and site coverage controls the size of the footprint of a building. Both are tools that control the size and mass of buildings, along with height restrictions and design guidelines. Very simply, the bigger the lot, the more GRFA and site coverage is allowed on the lot. B. GRFA In reference to GRFA, there is a graduated formula for controlling floor area. For example, the calculation for primary /secondary, duplex, and single- family type homes is the following: Max GRFA (Floor Area) _ .25 x lot area between -0 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft. .10 x lot area between 15,000 sq ft. and 30,000 sq. ft. .05 x lot area over 30,000 sq ft. Example A 35,000 square foot lot would be entitled to 3 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 II EHU (per lot). C. Site Coverage Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total lot area. Therefore, the potential building footprint for a 35,000 sq. ft. lot is 7,000 square feet. D. - Lot Areas in Vail Since lot area directly affects GRFA and site coverage, staff reviewed lot sizes in Vail. Staff reviewed 611 lots in sudivisions across the Town. Lot sizes range from several thousand square feet to over a 100,000 square feet. The average lot size in Vail is approximately 21,000 square feet based on lots that were reviewed. More than half the lot sizes in this survey are between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet. Table 1 below summarizes the frequency of lot sizes in the Town of Vail: • 4 TABLE 1 LOT SIZES IN THE TOWN OF °WAIL Lot Area (square feet) Percent Total Number in Range 0 -5,000 2.93% 18 5,001- 10,000 18.73 %0 115 10,001 - 15,000 15,001- 20,000 25.24 %fl 18.40 % 155 113 20,001- 25,000 12.54% 77 25,001 - 30,000 3,91% 24 30,001 - 35,000 6.35% 39 35,001 - 40,000 40,001 + Totals_ 3.26% 8.14% 100% 20 50 611 E. Imoact of GRFA and Site Coverag- Staff reviewed how GRFA and site coverage work together and what would happen if one or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for lots ranging from 8,000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 below displays the effect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark solid line indicates existing GRFA with credits. The "No GRFA" lines reflect the range of how big a home could be if site coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The No GRFA (low) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage-for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). The No GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 80% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor). Based on this review of GRFA and site coverage it appears that site coverage is the more limiting factor on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet. Once lot sizes exceed 20,000 square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If GRFA were eliminated, a significantly larger home could be constructed on the larger lots in Town. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot structure without GRFA. With GRFA, a building could only be as large as 7,800 square feet in size (with credits)_ Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in the Town of Vail. Figure 1 RoorArea Con parision 25,000 20,000 s 1s,OOD 0 W a ` 00 1 O,OOO LL 5,004 VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative 1 - Kee GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: GHFA+ Credhs NO GRFA (Law) - 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 spacbs or vaulted areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are: 1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations. • • 6 (D CJ C. P O 6 O O 4 0 a O O C 6 C3 O O 4 47 a 4 4 Q Q C CCI O N u3 W O M M A M C) LO A O N e m O N eet; M CD O r r r r r N N N N N S�] c] c M W � It Ln Ln Ln Ln In CL Lot Area (sq k.) 2) Staff recommends that a home have no remaining GRFA before doing interior modifications. In other words, if a property had 500 square feet of GRFA remaining, they would have to first build that additional floor area (on the outside of the existing structure) and then, at a later time, do an interior remodel to maximize livable area on the inside of the existing structure and the addition. 3) Equity is an issue with this alternative by only applying it to homes built before a certain date. Property owners of homes built in the future may desire to take advantage of the same opportunity to use vaulted and crawl spaces for livable area. B. Alternative 2- Do not include basement sp ace 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- Eliminate QRFA This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to controlling bulk and mass for single family, duplex, and primary /secondary homes. In its place, site coverage would need to be reduced on - large lots and stronger design guidelines would be required. This alternative would address the problem statement by eliminating the need for staff to regulate the floor area in the home. GRFA does not prevent a property owner from building a "block -like" structure. Stronger design guidelines are a better tool for controlling the appearance of buildings. However, it should be noted that GRFA does control the overall mass of a home, particularly on larger lots. Specific considerations related to alternative 3 include: 1) Site coverage would have to be modified for lots over 19,000 square feet to prevent significantly larger homes. Figure 2 demonstrates that site coverage can be graduated just like GRFA to control building sizes. The GRFA line is plotted and is identical to the line in Figure 1 above. The No GRFA lines reflect the potential building mass without GRFA and using a site coverage allowance of: 20% for lot area between 0- 19,000 square Feet 5% for lot area between 19,000 - 40,000 square feet + 4% for lot area above 40,000 square feet 7 Figure 2 Reduced Site Coverage 12,000 1(),000 8,000 e 6,000 0 4,000 2,000 0 G R FA +G redits - - - -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. is 3) New design guidelines and site coverage requirements would have to be in place before this alternative could be implemented. This may include new height restrictions to ensure off -sets in the roof line (i.e. like the 60/40 split in the Village) 4) Parking standards are currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would have to be created. 5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the Design Review Board. Staff would recommend that a minimum of two members of the board be architects or Landscape architects. 6) 'Many existing subdivisions (such as Spraddle Creels) 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, 6) 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. E? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 a 0 0 0 a o o q c o o R c S o tV N N N M CIO Q Q f N in Lot Ares 0 E. Summary of Alternatives Table 2 C....,rr,., of Dlfornnf %nMC E Alternative Problem 1: Problem 2: Problem 3: Ground rule: Ground rule: Key Issues: Effectiveness Intrusiveness Simplicity/ Do not increase Do not in controlling of TOV Staff & size hinder mass and regulating Applicant design bulk interior Time creativity space Alternative GRFA does This Would be Could increase size Staff A) Equity: 1- not control alternative very unless it is applied recommends People will still Keep design but it would provide complicated if only to homes built new design want to build in GRFA but does control greater applied to prior a certain date guidelines vaulted areas allow mass of homes flexibility to use new homes. and would apply that will and crawl interior on large lots. space inside a only to homes that provide better spaces in the changes to Would see 'home. have maxed out criteria for the future. exceed increase in size GRFA. DRB but does not hinder B)Should this GRFA limit if this aft. is design. be applied to applied to new new homes? 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 s p ac e basement ment area space would have to be calculated Alternative Site coverage, Does address Staff may Gould increase Same as This 3 -No design this issue. have to building size above alternatives GRFA guidelines, and TOV would review design depending on how effectiveness height controls only regulate criteria for site coverage is depends on could more building permit DRB_ modified. It is changing site effectively issue inside a possible to control coverage, control exterior home. mass with site design appearance. coverage and guidelines, and design controls the DRB "s effectiveness in implementing the guidelines. Vail is 90% built out -is it too late to change? 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. • V11. 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 (Le, 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 1 with the following conditions: * Apply to existing development and future development in order to address the equity issue. * A volumetric multiplier would need to be developed and be applied to future construction to prevent the creation of large vaulted spaces in new homes. * Don't include basement space that is completely below grade in GRFA calculations (This is basically Alternative 2). PEC acknowledged that Alternative 1 could achieve many of the aspects of Alternative 2 and staff would need to look at this issue more closely. 0 The members of the Planning Commission were supportive of implementing improved design guideline regardless of what alternative was finally selected. 11 1st 2nd 3rd 4th unacceptable Preference Preference Preference Preference Alternative 1- Keep 3 2 2 GRFA & allow interior modifications. Alternative 2- Don't 0 4 1 2 count basement space as GRFA Alternative 3- 4 1 2 Eliminate GRFA Alternative 4 1 2 No Action There was significant discussion regarding each of the alternatives in the context of choosing preferences; 3 members had alternative 1 as their first choice and 4 members choose alternative 3 as their first preference. Two members of the PEC felt that Alternatives 1 and 2 are unacceptable. The final motion, approved 4 -3, was to recommend alternative 1 with the following conditions: * Apply to existing development and future development in order to address the equity issue. * A volumetric multiplier would need to be developed and be applied to future construction to prevent the creation of large vaulted spaces in new homes. * Don't include basement space that is completely below grade in GRFA calculations (This is basically Alternative 2). PEC acknowledged that Alternative 1 could achieve many of the aspects of Alternative 2 and staff would need to look at this issue more closely. 0 The members of the Planning Commission were supportive of implementing improved design guideline regardless of what alternative was finally selected. 11 BA I/ BRAUN AS SOCIATES. INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Russ Forest FROM: Tom Braun DATE: February 6, 1997 RE: Phase II of GRFA Analysis Attached you will find the Phase H GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of the three potential alternatives to the current GRFA system. These three alternatives, as selected by the Town Council, include 1) the conversion of interior space in homes that meet or exceed allowable GRFA, 2) the exclusion of basement space from calculation as GRFA, and 3) the elimination of GRFA. The following information is provided for each of these alternatives: • 1) Description of Altemative 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 0 Council, Commission and public during previous discussions regarding GRFA. 3) Proposed Language This section outlines how and where each alternative could be incorporated into the Town's zoning code and presents preliminary language for implementing the alternative. This should not be considered "final ordinance language ". Rather, it is intended to provide the Council, Planning Commission and community with a better understanding of how each alternative could be implemented and additional issues that will need to be resolved during the implementation phase of this process. 4) Issues to Consider Outstanding issues and implications relative to each alternative are highlighted in this section. As we have discussed, the purpose of this phase in the GRFA Analysis is to further understand the issues and implications relative to each potential alternative. It is important to understand that it is not the intention of this phase to resolve all potential issues related to each alternative. Rather, this report identifies outstanding issues that would need to be addressed during the third and final step in this process. This report will hopefully provide the PEC and Town Council with the information needed to identify a preferred altemative to the existing GRFA system. • Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.827.5797 201 Main Street. 2nd Floor Fax - 970,827.5507 Post Office Box 776 Minturn. Colorado 8164S 0 Alternative #1 - Interior Conversions Description of Alternative Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home. Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. This approach is intended to allow flexibility to owners of existing homes by allowing GRFA to be created within the interior space of a home (i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc). Issues to be Addressed Alternative must provide assurances that modifications to homes do not increase building bulk and mass. Proposed Language This alternative would be implemented with the addition of a new chapter in the zoning code similar in the manner in which the 250 Ordinance has been structured. This chapter would have the following major sections: 1) Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces . 0 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 bulb 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 stricture in a manner which exposes additional exterior walls, the expansion of existing roofs and the addition of roof dormers. Examples of exterior modifications which are not considered to add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window - wells. • Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards. • If the proposal involves the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking space to GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on -site . parking spaces. Phase IUGRFA Analysis 4) Process Application made to Department of Community Development to include applicable forms, fees, and existing and proposed floor plans. Design review application shall be required for all proposals involving modifications to exterior of buildings. • Community Department staff shall review application for compliance with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations. • Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be approved. Proposals deemed to not comply with this chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be denied. Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with securing building permit prior to initiating construction of project. Issues to Consider The " mechanics" of implementing the interior conversion alternative are fairly straight forward. Outstanding issues pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For example, the language outlined above states that the purpose of this alternative is to "provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces within existing single - family and two - family structures ". This begs the question of when is a home "existing ". The following sumnnarizes implications relative to the applicability of this alternative: Allow interior conversions for all homes The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for all homes is that new homes will comply with GRFA but will be designed to allow for the conversion of space in the future. For example, it would be relatively easy to design Aver -sized void spaces in basement levels and to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of which could then be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available to all homes. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they would otherwise have been if interior conversions were not permitted. 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 ti ordinance is adopted This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. Limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted eliminates any potential concern with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it fair to deny an owner who builds in the future the same opportunity available to other homeowners? 0 Phase 11 /GRFA Analysis Alternative #2 - Basement Space Description of Alternative This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA. Issues to be Addressed Develop a clearly stated definition of basement space, ensure that grades cannot be artificially modified to allow for space to be interpreted as basement. Proposed Language The definition of GRFA includes paragraph 18.04.130 A. which excludes certain areas from calculation as GRFA in buildings containing two or fewer units. In order to implement this alternative, this paragraph would be modified with the addition of the following: 5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at all points around the structure. While this language is probably the cleanest, most straight forward way to exclude basement 40 space, is only excludes space that is 100 % below grade. This alternative would not exclude basement space for walkout levels. An alternative for addressing walkout levels is the following: 5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) at all points around the structure. For any level which is partly above and partly below'grade, a calculation of the portion of the subject level which is below grade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the level which shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. This percentage shall be made by detern 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? U Phase I1/GRFA Analysis CALCULATION OF BASEMENT SPACE Building Crass- section Point where basement level is 6' below grade Slab on grade Basement Level 1,250 sq. ft. 50' Basement Level Floor Plan CALCULATION Point where basement level is 6" below grade 25' 150` - LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL 50'- PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL 6' OR MORE BELOW GRADE 33%- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150') 1,250 (SQ. FT. BASEMENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SQUARE FEET EXCLUDED • 11 C7 • 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 N 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%Q 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 111GRFA 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 %Q 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 ©r in a form which consists of one primary building mass in conjunction with one or more secondary building forms. Rid a 'nes Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the characteristics of a site and the design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50 -70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a predominantly one to two -story building mass. Building Scale A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human -scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: • Dormers • Decks and balconies • Roof overhangs • Fenestration Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more clearly expressed in graphic form. Phase IUGRFA Analysis lssues to Consider • In order to not limit architects design creativity, qualitative guidelines are proposed in lieu of quantitative standards. This alternative places a great deal of responsibility in the hands of the DRB, is the Board capable of this task? • Are design guidelines explicit enough and will they provide the DRB with the tools necessary to prevent "large, non- descript boxes "? • is it necessary to reduce allowable site coverage for larger lots or will a reduction to allowable site coverage encourage taller buildings? • Are three parking spaces per unit adequate or is some other formula (i.e. based on number or bedrooms) necessary? • is there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether or not changes are made to the GRFA system? • • Phase 111GRFA Analysis Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Building Form In lieu of large, monumental building [Hass, buildings should be designed as either a composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one primary building mass and one or more secondary building forms. Composition of building forms reduces building bulk and mass. These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa alternative. • I�AUrrcN cev [JJ f/L cff&"1y --u. JGL.VlLLLL.Lly U"LLC Uq; Jtlrrrta. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Building Height Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two -story building mass. Three -story massing may be approved by the DRB, however, large expanses of continuous three- story building mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed 50 %© of the floor area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off -sets should be provided to reduce the perceived bulls and mass of the building. • Three stories are appropriate because floor area of third level does not exceed 50% of level below. Variation in ridge line elevations, building offsets, use of dormers and decks reduce bulk and mass, building does not "read" as three stories. • Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Ridgelines Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings which can reduce building bulk and mass- The extent of variations in the height and orientation of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the characteristics of a site and the design of the building. Generally, the maximum length of any continuous ridgeline should not exceed 50 -70' without a change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline. Variations in roof ridgelines provide variety and breaks -uP building mass created.by continuous ridgeline. Ridgelines greater than 50' -74' should be off- set at least Y -4'. 0 Change in ridge line elevation and orientation creates two amt-- building forms and breaks up building mass. These sketches are from design guidelines for prof rcts outside s e xample ieustr-ate;° Vail, howsketcheocould be used to reinforce the sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rath design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. `75-0 -10' Town of Vail GR.F'A Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRF'.A. Alternative Sloping Lots Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in order to 1Y + °�� predominantly o story building m 0 Building mass should be "benched" into the hillside. a 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 GRf A related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa " alternative_ Building steps with the natural contours of the site to maintain one -two story massing. Town of Vail GRFA Analysis Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative Building Scale : A variety of architectural details can be incorporated into the design of a building to reinforce human -scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building_ Use of the following should be considered in the design of homes: -Dormers -Decks and balconies -Roof overhangs -Fenestration • Building offsets, roofline and dormer all contribute to reduce the mass of this building. Bay window and balcony reinforce human- scale. Is These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative. 0 Other Issues Relative to GRFA Amendments Amendments for EHU's and Permanent residents Only During previous discussions comments were made to allow the provisions of these alternatives in conjunction with the development of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Vail. These are Town Council policy decisions. The information outlined above addresses the technical aspects of each alternative. Limiting the applicability of these provisions to only EHU's and/or permanent residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process which was to: Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size Address the time required to administer the current system Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space Limiting the applicability of any GRFA amendment to either encourage EHU's or for the benefit of permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives. 2. Vaulted Space One recognized short- 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 l 0 Attachment B GRFA and EHU sections of the Town Code. u 0 12 12 -15 -1 CHAPTER 15 GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) SECTION: 12 -15 -1: Purpose 12 -15 -2: GRFA Requirements By Zone District 12 -15 -3: Definition, Calculation, And Exclusions 12 -15 -4: Interior Conversions 12 -15 -5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) 12 -15 -2 12 -15 -1: PURPOSE: This Chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the Town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. (Ord. 13(1996) § 3) 0 12 -15 -2: GRFA REQUIREMENTS BY ZONE DIS'T'RICT: 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 %p of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. PS 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq, ft. per allowable dwelling unit Primary /Secondary 10 % of 'lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and Residential up to 30,000 sq, ft. + 5 % of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft. (the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of GRFA on -site prior to application of credit) 799 Town of 'Vail 12 -15 -2 12 -15 -2 GRFA Credits GRFA (Added 7o Results Of Zone Districts Ratio /Percentage Application Of Percentage) RC 25% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single- family and two - Residential Cluster family structures only LDMF 30% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single - family and two - Low Density Multiple- family structures only Family MDMF 35% of buildable lot area 225 sq, ft. for single - family and two - Medium Density Multiple- family structures only Family HDMF 60% of buildable lot area None High Density Multiple - Family PA 80% of buildable lot area None Public Accommodation CC1 80% of buildable lot area done Commercial Core 1 CC2 80% of buildable lot area None Commercial Core 2 CC3 30% of buildable lot area None Commercial Core 3 CSC 40% of buildable lot area done Commercial Service GRFA shall not exceed 50% of total Center building floor area on any site ABD 60% of buildable lot area None Arterial Business H5 None permitted None Heavy Service LMU -1 Up to 250% of buildable lot area None Lionshead Mixed Use 1 LMU -2 Up to 250% of buildable lot area None Lionshead Mixed Use 2 A Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total None Agricultural And Open Space OR None permitted None Outdoor Recreation r • 799 Town of Vail r 0 12 -15 -2 GRFA Zone Districts Ratio /Percentage P None permitted None Parking GU Per PEC approval None General Use NAP None permitted None Natural Area Preservation SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None Ski Base/Recreation SDD Per underlying zoning or per None Special Development development plan approval by Council (Ord. 3(1999) § 8: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) 12 -15 -3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: A. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, Sheetrock, plas- ter and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay win- dows, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawlspaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be includ- ed in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsection Al or A2 of this Section. 1. Single - Family, Two - Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures: Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as 12 -15 -3 GRFA Credits (Added To Results Of Application Of Percentage) GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square footage: a. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this Title. b. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss -type members will be excluded from calcu- lation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inch- es (30 ") apart. Town of Vail June 2000 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. i ; -r 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. 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 ill "employee housing unit (EHU)° as defined and restricted by Chapter 13 of this Title, f 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 0 June 2400 Town of Vail 12 -15 -3 12 -15 -3 0 are spaced no greater than thirty inch- a. Distance Above Inside Floor es (30 ") apart. f. Crawlspaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling height, as mea- sured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor mem- bers of the floor /ceiling assembly above. �+ g. Roofed or covered decks, porch- es, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (25 %) of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet (3') in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18 ") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. B. Additional Calculation Provisions: 1. Walls: Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For two - family and primary/secondary structures, com- mon party walls shall be considered exterior walls. 2. Greenhouse Windows: Greenhouse windows (self- supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" � are defined according to the following criteria: • Town. of Vail Level: In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of thirty six inches (36 ") must be provided between the bottom of the window and the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor sur- face shall not include steps necessary to meet building code egress require- ments.) The thirty six inch (36 ") mini- mum was chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and because it allows for a typical four foot (4') high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an eight foot (8') ceiling height. b. Projection: No greenhouse win- dow may protrude more than eighteen inches (18') from the exterior surface of the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building. c. Construction Characteristics: All greenhouse windows shall be self - supporting and shall not require spe- cial framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five degree (45°) angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to four inches (4 ") beyond the window plane. d, Dimensional Requirement: No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area greater than forty four (44) square feet. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in an June 2000 12 -15 -3 average sized room, is four feet (4') and the maximum width for a four foot (4') high self - supporting window is between six feet (6') and eight feet (8') (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would protrude no more than eighteen inches (18 "), the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approxi- mately forty four (44) square feet. e. Quantity: Up to two (2) green- house windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the forty four (44) square foot size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two (2) windows. f. Site Coverage: Greenhouse win- dows do not count as site coverage. 3. Vaulted Spaces: Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations. 4. Garage Credit: a. Allowable garage area is award- ed on a "per space basis ", with a maximum of two (2) spaces per allow- able unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area includ- ed in the garage credit shall be contig- uous to a vehicular space. b. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the garage and which are twenty five percent (25 %) or more open to the garage area shall be included as ga- rage credit. c. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be count- ed as GRFA. 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 (6') 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 0 .tune 2000 Town of Vail 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: INFERIOR CONVERSIONS: A. Purpose: The interior conversion sec- lion 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. G. Standards: 1. No application to add floor area pursuant to this section shall be made until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an application is presently pending in conjunction with the appli- cation to add floor area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 2. Applications to add floor area pur- suant to this section shall be con- structed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in exis- tence prior to August 5, 1997. New structures or exterior additions to existing structures built after the effec- tive date hereof will not be eligible for interior conversions. Examples of how floor area can be increased under the February 2002 Town of Vail 12 -15 -4 provision of this section include the conversion of existing basement or crawlspaces to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the building volume of the existing building, and the conversion of other existing interior spaces such as storage areas to GRFA. 3. Proposals for GRFA pursuant to this section may involve exterior modi- fications to existing buildings, howev- er, such modifications shall not in- crease the building bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior modifications which are con- sidered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building, regrading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical feet of ex- isting exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Notwithstanding the two (2) vertical foot limitation to re- grading around a building described above, additional regrading may be permitted in order to allow for egress from new interior spaces. The extent of such regrading shall be limited to providing adequate egress areas for 12 -15 -4 windows or doors as per the minimum necessary requirement for the adopt- ed building code. Examples of exterior modifications which are not consid- ered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, sky- lights, and window wells. Subject to design approval, dormers may be considered an exterior modification in conjunction with interior conversions permitted by this section. Prior to approval of proposed dormers or re- grading for windows or doors as de- scribed above, the staff or the design review board shall find that they do not add significantly to the bulk and mass of the building and are compati- ble with the overall scale, proportion, and design of the building. For the purpose of this section, "dormers" are defined as a vertical window project- ing from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable or shed roof, in which the total cumula- tive length of the dormer(s) does not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer(s) pro- jects. Lanoth of roof Plana Length of dormar - f _ ArE Cumulotive LmnQkh of dormer(%] me y not exca d 50% of th■ length of tha roof plena. • 11 February 2002 Town of Vail J 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. 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(l 998) § 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 Town of Vail February 2002 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 certifi- 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 be requested and granted in more Proposals for the utilization of the 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 0 February 2002 Town of Vail 12 -15 -5 GRFA under this Code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area, if required, shall accompany the appli- cation under this Section, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. 12 -15 -5 additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been con- structed on the property, or an appli- cation is presently pending in conjunc- tion with the application for additional GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property. 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 6. Conformity With Guidelines: Ali 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 eligible 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 allowable GRFA shall be eligi- this Section, the staff shall review the bie 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 Yazd 12 -15 -5 temporary or final), or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not re- quired for use of the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and ,occupancy of the building. 2. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable develop- ment standards. If a variance is re- quired for a proposal, it shall be ap- proved by the Planning and Environ- mental Commission pursuant to Chap- ter 17 of this Title before an applica- tion is made in accordance with this Section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final Planning and Environmental Commis- sion approval or the approval for addi- tional GRFA shall be voided. 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. 12 -15 -5 General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and sites, including the multi - family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facili- ties, berming to screen surface park- ing, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said design review guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all required improve- ments to the multi - family dwelling site and building have been completed as required. 6. Condominium Association Submit- tal: An application for additional GRFA shall be made on behalf of each of the individual dwelling unit owners by the condominium association or similar governing body. 7. Applicability: The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA ( additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be allowed in multi - family dwellings. No applica- tion for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allow - able GRFA has been constructed on the property. The use of additional GRFA by individual dwelling unit own- ers, pursuant to the additional GRFA provisions, is permitted only when one hundred percent (160 %0) 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 .0 799 Town of Trail 12 -15 -5 12 -15 -5 developed in context of the entire subsections 12- 11 -4C2 and C3 of this structure. Title. 8. Nontransferable To Demo /Rebuild: Any building which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursu- ant to this Section and is demo /re- build, shall be rebuilt without the addi- tional GRFA as previously approved. 9. Demo /Rebuild Not Eligible: Any multiple - family structure or dwelling unit which is to be demo /rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA. D. Procedure: 1. Application; Content: Application shall be made to the Department of Community Development on forms provided by the Department of Com- munity Development, by the condo - minium association or a similar gov- erning body and shall include: a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the application. b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12 -11 -4C of this Title. c. Any other applicable information required by the Department of Com- munity Development to satisfy the criteria outlined in this Section. 2. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt of a completed application for addi- tional GRFA, the Design Review Board shall set a date for a hearing in accordance with subsection 12- 11 -4C2 of this Title. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Town of Vail 3, Compliance Determined: If the Department of Community Develop- ment staff determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: a. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exteri- or of a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Com- munity Development. b. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a build- ing shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board in accor- dance with the provisions of this Sec- tion. 4. Compliance Required: If the De- partment of Community Development staff determines that the site for which additional GRFA is applied for pursu- ant to this Section does not comply with minimum Town landscaping or site standards as provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with such stan- dards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit appropriate plans and materi- als indicating how the site will be brought into compliance with said Town minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be reviewed by and approved by the Department of Community Development. 799 12-15 -5 12 -15 -5 5. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of additional GRFA. (Ord. 16(1998) § 2: Ord. 13(1997) § 3) • 0 799 Town of Vail 12 -13 -1 CHAPTER 13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING • SECTION: 12 -13 -1: Purpose 12 -13 -2: Applicability 12- 1 -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. 8(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. 0(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: 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. Town of Vasil June 2000 12 -13 -3 2. For EHUs which are required to be leased, they shall only be leased to and occupied by tenants who are full - time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) con - secutive days. For the purposes of this Chapter, a full -time employee is one who works an average of a mini- mum of thirty (30) hours each week on a year -round basis. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates preva- lent for similar properties in the Town. An EHU shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed five (5) consecutive months. 3. For an EHU which can be sold separately, the EHU must be occupied by the owner of the EHU as a perma- nent residence, except for Type III employee housing units, which may be occupied by any person meeting the employment requirements con- tained herein. For the purpose of this subsection, a "permanent residence" shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after a departure or absence there- from, regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account: business pursuits, em- ployment, income sources, residence for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and real property, and motor vehicle registration. Thirty (30) days 12 -13 -3 prior to the transfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an application to the Depart- ment of Community Development documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria. 4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter shall submit two (2) copies of a sworn affidavit on a form to be obtained from the Depart- ment of Community Development, to the Department of Community Devel- opment setting forth evidence estab- lishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full -time employee in Eagle County, 5. The provisions set forth in this subsection A shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. B. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limita- tions, Reporting Requirements - Type IV: All Type IV employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and sub- r 1 June 2000 Town of Vaal 12 -13 -3 12 -13 -3 stance acceptable to the Town Man- D. Application Requirements: ager and Town Attorney. 1. Applicants for a conditional use C. Development Standards: permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall not be re- f. No property containing an EHU quired to pay a conditional use permit shall exceed the maximum GRFA application fee or design review appli- permitted in this Title except as spe- cation fee. cifically provided herein. 2. EHU applications requiring a condi- 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. tional use permit are subject to review and approval by the Planning and 3. All surface parking shall be Environmental Commission as provid- screened by landscaping or berms as ed for in Chapter 1+6 of this Title. per Chapter 11 of this Title. 3. EHU applications which do not 4. Each EHU shall have its own en- require a conditional use permit shall trance. There shall be no interior ac- be reviewed by the Department of cess from any EHU to any dwelling Community Development subject to a unit it may be attached to. design review application. 5. An EHU may be located in, or at- tached to, an existing garage (existing on or before April 18, 2000, and whether located in a required setback or not), provided that no existing park- ing required by this Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type I EHU which has five hundred (500) square feet or less of GRFA may be considered for physical separation from the primary unit, if it is constructed in conjunction with a two (2) car garage and is other - -. - wise compatible with the surrounding properties, does not have an adverse impact on vegetation, and does not dominate the street. The Design Re- view Board shall review such requests for separation. 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom. 7. Occupancy of an employee housing unit shall be limited to the maximum of two (2) persons per bedroom. • Town of Vail 4. Applications for a Type Il employee housing unit shall include the signa- tures of all owners of the property (i.e., both sides of a duplex) or there shall be a letter accompanying the application from all owners agreeing to the addition of an employee hous- ing unit. Applications will not be ac- cepted unless this provision is met. 5. Any existing legal nonconforming dwelling unit in the Town may be converted to an EHU administratively by the Town without obtaining a condi- tional use permit. Dwelling units and lock -off units which exist as of the date hereof but which are noncon- forming with respect to density and GRFA may be converted to a con- forming EHU administratively by the Town, as long as they otherwise com- ply with the development standards and parking requirements found here- in and comply with the building code requirements of the Town. Upon being June 2000 4 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 � / f 2 � � � / \ R o / ® � \ 0 \ . R 0 \_ƒ \\ » ° ± 2 \ & & \ \§ @* »§ < y\/ » /E / <.�co7 2c \f ¢( y\g CM \$ 2 G/ \§ 2& =f �E CM -J cn c p / CL CL K } \ k ƒ 2 tm ��f 7 Ca 0) — E u =2�5 1 G e 2% l c` a 2 © -` 0= 5 � d § [ \ 2 6 & E CD co G& =# 578 In j \k\ - 2 ±« � & 3 2� ] Ej \ \ \ \ U, Jo ]@$¥ © \_ U) -0 /72§ ƒ ) ca 2 �m - a § = � sees �2 =te aces=$ k�j3)9 UJ0 —, °/ ca]\ e�2CL mm » 22 Ee2 ,I/ / 5&/ \7ks /fa\ 72% 777 /f $/ /{ / \f }>E�( A� > g=,0, . §7 I� /] / ƒ /{n: ƒ\ ¥ > \ ƒ '9 � � / \ R o / ® � \ 0 \ . R 0 N T • C4 N T f 0 a 0 N m c 0 Er c 0 m CD 3 C z o US iu E co m m E 0 E o o o E-o .E E m u n w w d Lo ° in - m E= -o m c E E m E f m R E E Ci rs E —° O C] E c o - �° o .c ` -} m m E a ai o o •- EZ 3 LL c E E �S i° m F o m rn u cli E LO E R E o > `o m m w .c m c L v, m 0. U o CL F- � c m m m [j rn E m m as d rn ° c C7 c m m m m u] m �G as a o m fa - a� LO Q m N - D o d °_ o a m M 3 0 -6 Cc m H K O . y m 7 LL m 2 co d C ft�f E m a E m C � 3: O C d f N d m m y ® m O to 1= m a a 79 N CO � o •� 4 v 6 m N m ,� u5 iti d N U � T2 C � CII .` 'C3 .� tXL fSl dG fit _ U .� C a U C s a a > C U L' m E a a' a`r m� m � E v, N E c��E EoFEEE s E CD C m o a o w a m N U Q ,J � v �n m.3 o o o m n` 0 x 2 li- 2. 'U U U I') < CL 0 c J 2 Lu a a 0 a 0 N m c 0 Er li / / f C; A » 2 ) #) )\\GG� . in °06% 7&&=u= < ±\i / :3 E// \ = Sr , \2/2 2k�© } jD J7/ \5 © c �2 k `/ /k //k 7M =mom) /j \ \�\ } /\\\ $ {\�� C ) § \ /&/ <Qim £ @¥ {/\ /$_/ — =S\ \ ) C < co 2� §\± �/ Lo . \ \a ) ED 0.2 o < =7 ] eE�ro \ § §/ }9 \« e , ` ] ,J7 \ //Q 6 e / ) n\ jE, . ca & _ 6 2 \ * - .� -§ =�73 -- a) NE \C /L�_/))a CL /ƒIr}cr\c2J / k . » \ / ; § c / \ \ 0 C") T N r J ` C7 [7 r �— N {y T T l O 0 0 cv C O 3 F, m C ❑ � c C' i °• U m o w N C 7 Q N 2 p N L. �l C CL N �$ R c Y LU C C CL CL O m Qi CL 7 Q ® CV N N (6 0 A R m C1" W ca FUJi ..7 N 0 Ln lC (� 01 E C�6 O m a) lE Rt ''` O. 7> !4 ) a) D N N — 6 N N c7 m p 4 C d c 'm € atl rtS c 0 :C tC N U x C LO fz 3 U O L3 t E 6 O fu < at! a. 5m Q. v C C o 7, CO a) Q U 0) E. i C 0 y' U O m {A c is 4 Q 4 � c n Ch 0 7 I � cn ID ca Ln j o 'm 7� 2 N U y W C O? U .N O ] => d V U7 O L 8 CD Q �L ¢ J °- °' m 'y w ��� m C0 F a C I CU .[ ° ra 0 i63 N_ R3 t�C3 L C L1 Q CD E a= a 6 m A c N e E m CL 0 n N m V m a L 0 �� a1 m 7 h sn N t Q m cQ C Q! ; b N N N 7 £5 ❑ fII - � ' U N r c aci 0 o t) % ° Li N E € N o C IL r W m a O 0 0 cv C O 3 F, • Attahcment C Email from Vail Fire department • • 13 With respect to Vail Fire & Emergency Services' position on GRFA, I make the following comments and observations: 0 t.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 tendsto force the owner /contractorto look for locations to install fire alarm panels and fire sprinkler controls "out of the way" of what might be included in the allowable GRFA (habitable) space. Fire code requirements dictate fire alarm and fire sprinkler controls be "readably accessible" and sufficient space be provided for "repair and maintenance." Plans seldom show the head heigh has been reduced or that the "floor" where the equipment is located is 4 feet above the adjacent floor level. We have ordered the equipment relocated before a iTCO can be granted. It is a life safety issue for our personnel and presents a clear and present danger to expect emergency personnel to crawl over hot water pipes, crawl between boilers and a concrete wall, or crawl over duct work. I have seen situations wherein the "solution" created a "confined space" as defined under OSHA, 2. We find mechanical equipment being installed in uninhabitable spaces (as defined under GRFA) in which either ceilings or floors have been altered. Like fire protection equipment, mechanical equipment must also be readily accessible with adequate clearance to perform service, and repair or replacement of parts. Mechanical equipment typically has a set of minimum clearances to the top, bottom, front, rear, and sides_ 3. GRFA has had an effect of creating numerous instances of 'concealed combustible" construction. While statistically, fires start in bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens and mechanical rooms, (in various order depending on local conditions and other factors), a fire in a concealed combustible space presents a much more difficult condition. The effect of limiting usable space within the exterior perimeter of the house has resulted in owners concealing what would normally be habitable space. These concealments often include dropped ceiling, enclosed air spaces above bathrooms and bedrooms, false walls, and many unprotected but concealed crawl spaces. The spaces present a significant risk in the event fire burns into or starts in these interstitial spaces. 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. • Attachl C 01 ;24!200_' GRFA and Site Coverage Analysis for PIS and R Zoned Properties Only Name Legal Address Zoning Lot Size GRFA GRFA % Site Cov Site Cov% Year Scoln ck _. _. Lot 19, 71eck 5, Vail Inlermaountain : 2935 BaSSingdale F'1S 8, ' ' 2.475 29% 1,270 5a ,. :.1998. �Huerta Lot 9, Black 6, Vail- Intermountain ;.: 3003 Bellflower RIS` 9,626 - `., "x2,831 29 0:'' 1,4 4 15 %0 1999 hiauzy Lot 6, Block 3; b'ai1 Intermountain 2704 Larks pur Ccurt P,S 9,763 2,033 21 :6 1.317 14% 7997 Larson Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Intermountain,,, 2685 Larkspur Lane PIS 9,811 2.61:3 29 % 1 158 11, 1997 ❑auphinais- F.toseley Lot 48, V4 ".N ?sf ts. 1860 W. Core Creek Dr. PIS 10.019 3, °52 33`. 2.011 70 "L; 7002 $landlord Lot 13, Vail Village West Is, Filing 1796 Alpine Drive PIS 10,410 2,4 10 23% 1,624 16 "U 1098 Middleton ' - Lot 23. Vail Village Was-, 2'' '.' 1865W. Gore Creek Dr P,'S 11 : 6 255 31`76 ...1.,355 13 1 ,e 1997 Iron Hawk - Lot 9 Block 1. Vail Village 8th 11213 Hgrnsilver Circe PIS' - 10.633 4,888 .16% - 2,126 20% 2001 Mal Lot 14, Vail Village West Filing #1 1$08 Alpine Dnvc P!S - 10,646 3 0 � . 28 0 .279 12%, 1996 Zeltman ... Lot 18, Vail Village West 1 1779 SierraTrai# P)S I0 696 3340 ' 31 s; 1604 , _ 1§ la 1997 Pattison Lot 2. Block i„ Gore Creek Sub 5126 Black Gore Drive R 11,224 3,104 28% 2,090 19% 2002 Gray Lot 2, Block 2. Gore Creek Sub 5109 Mack Gore Drive R 11.378 3.361 30% 2 „440 21% 2001 Scalise Lot 9. Block E, Vail Das Schone 1st 2567 Arosa Drive PIS 11,843 4,314 36% 2,191 19% 1999 Kjesbo Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Creek Sub- 5111 Black Bear Lane R 12,020 3.231 27% 2,284 19% 1997 Cummings Lot 20, Vail Village West 2nd Filing 1835 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 Brown Lot 6, Block 8, Vail Ridge 2642 Cortina Lane PIS 12,760 3,571 28% 1,869 15% 2001 Knobel Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 191 392 Mill Creek Circle Pis 12,875 4,069 32% 2,575 20% 199a McDougal Lot 15. Block 6. Vail Intermountain 2955 Basingdale Blvd. PIS 13,113 3,696 28% 1,836 14% 1997 Dreyer Lot 6, Block 1. Gore Creek Sub 5114 Grouse Lane R 13.199 4,3 81 33% 2, ?64 17 °0 2400 Borne Lot 18: Bighorn 3w Lupine Drive PIS 14,844 4,133 28 %, 2,672 18% 1997 Gramelegui " Lot 7, Block t; Vail.lntermounlairi 2614 Larkspur Lane PIS " , 14,867, ' 4,521 30,a` ` 2,2.65 20Gn 204f :H it, Lot 35, 9luck 1, Butlehr Creek.,: - 1970 Chamonix Lane PlS, 15.550 4,573 29y'.' 3,017 19 : 1 0 19°8 .Tavesa ` Lot 18, Block B, Vail Ridge 2655 Davos Trail PiS ' 15,7513 i ; 4,286 27:0 i '2,343 - 15 °ip 1939 Beaver, Dam,"' = Lot 3, Black 3, Vail Village 3rd 383 Beavo Dent Road PS:` 15.950 ' 29% 3,04.1 ' 191 , 2001 DauphlnaisLot 16 Lot 16, Vail Village West Filing 92 1803 Shasta Place Pis 16.070 - 3,857 24% 3.214 20 % 1998 Erickson Lot 26, Buffehr Creek Subdivision 1987 Cirde Drive PIS 16,382 3.547 22% 2,293 14 °„ 1997 Billingsley Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 7 1170 Ptarmigan Road Pis 16.387 4,557 23 3.064 19 °.5 1999 Adam Lot 9. Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing 765 West Forest Read PIS 16,901 5.290 31% 2,670 1a ^, 1999 Wiley - ._.„ .. Lot i4. Block 3. Vail Valley irstFiling .. ; 1538 Spring Hil Lang,. „. 5,320 31 %,, • 2,822 _. 16:0 999 Hoverston Lot 15, Tract E. 2830 Aspen Court R 17,424 4,833 28 °,6 3,485 20% 1997 Dauphinais Lot 24, Lions Ridge Filing #3 1844 Glacier Court PIS 17,543 4,846 28% 3,158 18% 1998 Raether 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 Snowheny Drive PIS 17,860 3,151 18% 1,929 11% 1998 Flannery Lot 9, Blocs 7, Vail Village 1' 186 Forest Road Pts 18,164 4,511 25% 2,361 13 1997 A -Frame Lot 8, Block D, Vaal Ridge 2657 Arai Drive PIS 18,155 2,086 11% 1,144 6 1 ,u 1999 Laidlaw Lot 10, Matterhorn Village 1722 Geneva Drive PIS 18,185 2,794 15% 2,400 13% 1999 Robins Lot 27, Black 7, Vail Village list Filing 154 Beaver Dam Road PIS 18,469 5,930 32% 2,216 12 1999 Northwind Developers Lot 16, Block 1 365 Mill Creek Circle PIS 19,384 5,038 26% 3,877 20% 1997 VanBee #an Lot 19. Block H. Vail das Schone 2nd 2337 Garmisch PIS 19.515 2,308 12 1,561 894 1997 Acierman - TraTract C. Vail Village 7th 967 Vail Vary Drive P; S 1 _ . r' X02 ,' �, t .a0 26Ew 0 20 20 °' - 1998 Peters Lot 28, Block 7, Vail Village 7th 84 Beaver Darn Road PrS 19,G02 " 5,060 25x'. 3,Crt5 16% 2 Lohre Lot 26, `.`ail Village West 2" 1895W. Gore Creek Dr PIS 19,984 3,245 154'0. 1.599 540 1997. Viele Lots. l la k 2, Vail Village 1 ' ... 2745 Bald Mtn - Road R 20,291 4,885 2410 -. 2 G3Fl . 13% 1997 Peters Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3"' .. 4i 93 Spruce Vtay R' 21,000 , _', 5.168 25% , .3 360 i 16%" 1997 Logan - Lot 3, Block 1. Vail Potato Patch: 317 Potato=Patcrl PIS � 21,083, 5.185 -- 25% y ...1,9$9' 99a ;', -� 2000 Halaoy Lol VV2 d - - .252 West Meadow Dr R, 21,535 5.155 - 241 : '4,306 2002 Tall Pines Subdlwsion Lot 2, Tall Pines SlrtldIvis cri - 2339 Chamonix Lane :PIS 22.1315 4..957. 22%. 3,055.. - -14 °'o- - 1996 Illingsworth . Lot S. Vail Meadows 1st. 5112 Grouse Lane 'R ... - 22,216 - 5, - x'97 2G% - 4,265 19 % 1999 Kreciet Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st 226 Forest Road „ .PIS_ 22,224 7.333 .44,445 20% . _. 1906 Sheffield Lot 19, Block 7, Bighom 51h 4998 Meadow Drive PIS 22,751 4,929 22% 3,185 14 % 1998 Hagerman Lot 2, VVWest 2nd 1794 S. Frontage Rd. PIS 23,217 5205 22 2,098 9% 2002 Flinn Lot 21, Blocs 7, Vail Village Art 245 Forest Road PIS 23,954 4,914 21% 3,556 15 °I 2001 Groshire Lot 4 B 5, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivisio 5166 Black Gore Drive R 24,1787 5,354 22 3,490 15% 1999 Hoverstem Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village list Filing 95 Forest Road PIS 24,067 5,507 23% 2,575 11% 1999 Koenig Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3 0392 Beaver Dam Road Pts 25,273 5,651 22% 4,549 18% 1997 JAG Vail Lot 11, Block 5. Bighorn 51h Addill 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 Nrulez Lot 8.. Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing 1457 Vail Valley Drivo P/S 25,831 5,529 21% 4.314 17% 1998 Logan Lot 2. Block'1, Vail Potato Patch 1" $i5 Fotato:'atch D ive P1:3 26 22 :� 5'Y20 : ' 22 °ros„ ; 1.933 15%' 1997 Southwest Builders Lot 6, Black A. Vail Ridge " 2673 CortinaL;:°c r':S 27,617' 5. 21%, 4,143. 15°.x; 1997. Dorrarce Lots 3A &3B, Block 7, Vail Village 1st 97 AW3 Rockledge P.d 28,401 5.940 21°,fo ' - 3,957 14% - 2001 Henkes Lot 17, Block 9, Vail Intermountain 2824 Snowberry Drive -,S 28,52: -1750 1j% 2,567 _ 1999 Brae- Neptune 11 Lot 28, Glen Lyon Subcivlslorl - 1270 Westhaven Circle .s 28,70». 970 21 % 3,358 12 %' 1999 Hoffman Lai 9. Block 2. VV 13th 2665 Bald Mountain Rd R - - 31,27:, v 358 20 "5 4,111 13% .: 2002 Linn Lot 14, Glen Lydn 1350 Greenhill Court l'iS 32:,313 0.13` 19 %. `:4.524 1496 1907 Darby Vail 1 Lol 7, Black 1, Bighorn Sub 3847 Lupine Drive R. =,1' 1 g 3rs6 18 %;:- 3,960 11 2000 Wand Devulopnlenr LL Lot 1, Block 4. Vail Village 3rd - Filing . 381 Beaver Dal r Circle. - PI.= t ,girCi :i, Eo"t 16 5,250 '13" /0 1999 Reimers Lot 11, Block 1. VV1?In 3275 Katzos Ranch Pfd ".. 45,:SA ... 4 .._;,; 9% 2,391 6% 2602 - Averages . .:...::. .. 1.9,257. 4.521 25% 2,813 15% 01 ;24!200_' • W. Ql C� a1 co m ©. • away J001:j SSOJ E) y g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� O = O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 4 t9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C N M t0 M O +tr t* 'I c0 et Cl Ln tC in O to I t tD Cl w Cl R M I~ R Y'1 ti 1 1-- p0 M1 Q1 1P.- Q aD r Go N 00 M as V aD Y! 06 W 00 I- 00 M 90 0 aO 0 0 to O CJi N 4 E _ LL y Q 0 0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 o (=+ a o 0 0 o 0 Ca O o c c Ca o 0 0 0 0 0 O O 1 to 00 0 N v to to O N to v N o w N o co to It N o co to -W N o co N Ln Oct N LA R of oc r R cc! c! O r A N W t0 R of ct1 aA Ct r N N L1! et ww N N t•1 M M d v v w 'K) L11 M 11• CD O w w m w w w tD w 0 0 R ti R R R R O a O m LL Q O LL O tOC1 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O I O in O w Y'1 O 'ia O Cl L11 a0 O 9 LL9 aC d1 O r N M It U 1 W 17i 4 r N r M Q 4 01'1 I tD t0 R cl N v of v of 0 0 w LL') L(7 tD LD iD tD tL LO t0 CD tD R M1 M1 r' M1 r M1 R R M1 rr M1 M1 L) U f Q LL CD CQ t O t11 0 0 0 0 O O Q O 0 O to 0 0 0 6 0 010 0 Co 0 0 0 O O 0 Q O O O Q C? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o to 0 0 0 0 0 Q o to O O O O a o 0 0 0 c a O o 0 c c 0 0 0 o o_ N o v o a o 0 0 O O O r N t+1 V t1] M M1 M M to r M s1- Lo � w R M M O N 0 V Ln [b R to 0 O co Q1 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N co co M M m m m co m y J 1 O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 Q O CD O n O CD 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 C3 0 p C '-" O C3 0 n t3 0 0 0 0 C3 0 to 0 0 0 to 0 c O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tC O t3 O O t0 0 0 0 CD O O O co O O CD 0 O c® o O C) O o C7 0 0 0 0 0 a ac ai to r" N C6 et LCi CO ti CD tT C r o q Ua cb ti cd im C+ e= N M I- U) co R CO O r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N m m M co M co M m M v tt1 cC} N d � Q © O J J O C O 0 0 0 O to O O O O C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to O LO O to o Liz Ln Le L1) OA W) w 011 111 L11 In in Ln L1] U7 0 U? Q LO O LO to ' 0 Lr1 O N w ti O N Lfl M1 OIL 01 O r N C9 L11 r0 R a0 a O r N Ct1 C7 V 'I7 LC] LCJ IR R R N C4 N N M co co co N M e= r -T et V et d' et d' in Ln Ln to Lt) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LC1 Q lL O O O O O O O o C7 0 C3 m rat m M1 to W Lo 0 011 V V et M M M M M N N N N a o � L N CD 7 *j O C3 O c7 0 0 0 0 CT Q O O G O C 0 0 0 0 t7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 @ Q n g� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0© w 0 O Ln O to O L11 O Ll1 O f L11 O L" O LC1 Lt) O (D a0 O N d' LD tL9 O N er CD r0 R P. ctl O m O O r r N N 1% M 1{7 LN t0 M1 r r N N N N N V) t+1 to t+) t"1 c'1 L" V) M tY'i" v 't et er mt 1 V R V V' I V V � i N I 'T N U O O O o .© o O' O O 0 O O O C3 t7 t7 O C o O O C 0 t) O 0 CD 0 o 0 O O tp O a0 o O OHO o I CD OHO O C O O o 0 0 0 O O o O O O to (a 0 00 Q p 'I t7 N c0 O N �7 tQ CC7 C] N tic c0 C? N 7 O C N V Cp c�7 O i N I aD C7 r r N N' N N N M M N M M- Sh 't S1' to Ln U7 LO LO tO CO CC 0 CD h; P+ R h co j i I i Q a1 co m ©. • 0 4) W CD €77 t0 IZ I Co o a o 0 0 0 0 a s cs a s C� 0 0 o Q o Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 c a a a a Cl 0 L(i CC! C% w O it w N (O Q d W N w a d CO N t0 a CT Ci t� I+ DD OCi 00 CA Ci} O O O ra it N C4 N M M V r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 o a Ca a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a m w w w O N v w w O[ d t0 w O N d w w a tQ (O h a C+i (o C3 e�i II Ci N I Ci N O 0 0 LW h I+ M d d d to to in 0 (D w tD I` I- I- w w w 0 0 0 a CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a o a 0 0 t1J a m C9 O O w a 0 O 4') a 0 Q LC? co u7 6 &a Co 00 13� Ca O O r r N C%L c"i M It q I(`i Mt (A h I: m 1+ h h w w w w w go w M e4 O w w OCI 0 0 0 0 i I O Q 6 O d' S 0 0 0 0 O Q Q Q Co 0 C7 Q O Ca x 0 0 0 0 0 O O O a O 0 O C3 O O n O O 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O= O O O O C? a p O a 0 0 0 0 Q r N M 0 Q h= CTi Q P N M e� M 0 h 0 M 0 d d u') u to 0 ui in I U') 0 un (A ED o Q Q O O C� 0 a 0 0© O o 0 0 o O CD O O oU Q In Q 0 C3 0 O Ili O m O u O u7 CD w o o w O O CA O O - r N N C'i e'i d d Lo L (C33 CC) r N O 4 N T r r c a o a a'a o 0 0 oi© o�o a 0 c5 o a a 0 IA 0 0 C� a o o© 0 0 0 o a a a a a 0 0 0 P- OQ iD cc C7 N I (rD W © (V pct cD qp O CV I fp q d d Ori' M Ci C51 C1 CA CA C U O 0 [3 r r r r r CV r ,I r r T r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� O O O O a Cl 0 0 0 O O O a CJ C3 Q C7 C] O O O O O O a O 4 [3 C? N It O O O N VP (C (1� j C� cl tt t0 o a I N tC co O CO CO (30 C0 M 0) CA CA M { O Q CD a C- V Q r ! r T T r CM I i i W CD €77 t0 IZ co a) E < F= < E < LL 0 0 g 0 0 cn C) LL < U- < F�x 0 0, 0 0, cu A w > 90, 0, _ uO 4-j 0 0 U) 0 0, Bz 0 0 -is 2 0 0, CD 0 C) C) Co CD 0 0 0, C) CD C) C) CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD N 0 • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 19, 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 policy for single family, duplex, and primary /secondary 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 11th, 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 49 is needed to consider the alternatives, staff would reccomend scheduling this topic fora evening meeting on April 9st. 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. 11. 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 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. III. - BACKGROUND In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which addressed the following 1) Reoccurring concernslissues 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 in 1995, 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. 10 The PEC reviewed this analysis on November 11, 1995. 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 • • r� L�J 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 2) 3) Phase 11 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30th & and alternatives. & 31 st, 1996 Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review proslcons and (PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. Analyze how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of Complete analysis of alternative approaches. PEC Worksession to review 3 alternatives PEG Meeting to recommend an alternative Council Worksession Possible Evening meeting for Council to decide on alternative 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 9) 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 November 11& November 26 1996 each alternative December & January 1996/1997 February 10, 1997 March 10, 1997 March 11, 1997 April 1st or 15th April, 1997 Following dates to be determined 3 9 These dates are tentative and subject to change 0 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 t] 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. 0 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 11 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 • LOT SIZES IN 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 3.91% 24 30,000 - 35,000 6.35% 39 35,000- 40,000 3.26% 20 40,000+ 8.14% 50 Total 100% 611 E. Impact of GRFA and Site Coverage Staff reviewed how GRFA and Site Coverage work together and what would happen if one or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for lots ranging from 8,000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 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 1st 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 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 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 eliminated, 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 primary /secondary 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. 0 Figure 1 Floor Area Cornparlsion 25,000 20,000 Cr 15.000 N R b 0 10,000 w 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 G 0 0 9 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 a o O 0 0 C © 0 C 0 0 0 C C m 0 ci wt m m o N7 Ka f� of r r r N N N N N S7 M c3 f•] V V V V V LO N9 47 4'S vy �il Lot Area (sq ft) V. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES GRFA + Cmd'Its • • • . NO GRFA (LOM — — No GRFA (HIG) A. Alternative 1 - Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications: 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 area`s and thus a larder 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 • 2 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 250 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 primarylsecondary 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 • i7 GRFA +C red its NO GRFA (Low) — — — NO GRFA (High) r� 1) Site coverage would have to be modified for tots 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 0 Reduced Site Coverage 12,000 I No GRFA (High)' 14,000 — G R FA +G red its B - No GRFA (Low) `a 6.400 - I t a 4,440 r _ 2,000 i 0 M o O O q q o 0 0 0 0 O O O D a o o a o q a o 0 0 0 p O o a q O O O O q p O O M N 1D 0 M N N 0 0 h N f© O V M N M Ci V R on u] 10 Lot Area GRFA +C red its NO GRFA (Low) — — — NO GRFA (High) r� 1) Site coverage would have to be modified for tots 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 0 • 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. I* 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 60/40 split in the Village) 4) Parking standards are currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would have to be created. 5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the [design Review Board. Staff would recommend that 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. 0 8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illeagal con verstionsfremodels that occur without a boiling 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. • Moil 0 E. Surnmary 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 s of TOV Staff & Don't mass regulating Applicant hinder interior Time 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 Vail mass of homes on large lots. 11 • VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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 consistency 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 f 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 Attachment: F Bill Gibson - GRFA 0 From: "Chuck Baker" Ccebaker @attbi.corn> To: <bgibson @ci.vail.co.us> Date: 12/1212002 8:18 AM Subject: GRFA After the PEC meeting on Nov. 25, you suggested we send you a letter stating our reasons for wanting to see GRFA modified or eliminated. We believe we are a prime example of the inequities inherent in GRFA as it presently written in the Town Code. We purchased our lot in November 1996 intending to start construction in the spring of 1997. We encountered a number of compromises in the design of our home because of GRFA limitations. We also learned that a change to GRFA was being considered by the Town Council so we delayed the start of construction. We finally applied for and received a building permit in October after GRFA was modified to apply to homes built before August 1997. If we had started construction as originally planned, our understanding is we would now be free of GRFA restrictions and able to make our home much more livable. Most people would probably agree that limiting the height and "footprint" of a house as the code does to preserve the character of Vail is a good thing. Our understanding of the GRFA limitation is that it came about as a growth control measure. We have also heard stories that in the early days some houses were built in a ridiculous manner so that a maximum number of rooms could be rented or that lodge owners were behind this to minimize competition. The exemption of houses built before a certain date in 1997 seems rather arbitrary. The arguments we have heard against eliminating GRFA appear rather emotional and not based on "what's best for Vail ". At a time when economic conditions have curtailed home building in Vail and the town is eagerly searching for new sources of revenue, elimination of GRFA would seem to have some very positive benefits, It would provide some much needed work for area construction workers and the resulting increase in home valuations would add to the tax base. Please let us know if there is any way we can be constructively involved in the process of revisiting and hopefully eliminating GRFA. Chuck and Carol Baker 479 -9676 0 ROM : S h i P f r i n FR ; NO. : 9704799265 Mar. 07 2003 09 : 53RM P2 # � iOSlevah V., mjng No 2309 ChMarllx LsOe Vail CO 81657 (970) n79.8320 March 6, 2003 Allison Ochs Town of Vail Community Development Fax 479.5242 Dear Allison: 1 am a registered voter and taxpayer, and I reside full time in Vail, CO. I practice full time at the Vail Valley Medical Center. would like to comment on the request by Pearson, et al, to amend the GRFA regulations I think that it would be a colossal blunder to lift the restrictions on GRPA in the Town of Vail. There are numerous areas outside of the town limits where people can build monstrous sized second or third residences. We have built something special here in Vail, it think it would be a mistake to allow a few People who don't even reside here full time to ruin it for the rest of us. Please share my letter with the Planning and Environmental Control Committee, as well as the Design Review Board. Thank you. 0 Sincerely Joseph O. Billig MD • Bill Gibson Page 1 of 1 From: "Ron Pollack" <rpollack @tampa bay. rr.com> To: <Icampbell @ci.vail.co -us >, <towncouncil @ci.vail.co.us> Date: 03/19/2003 7:42 PM CC: <jflamont@vail.net >, <cgramm@slifer.net >, <BradF @gsconco.com >, <reslockarchitect @aol.com >, "Steve & Paula Hayes (E- mail)" <shayes @bulldogcapital.com> Dear Sirs, I recently received in the mail a notice of proposed changes in the GFRA and related regulations. The notice had virtually no details, and merely said that some information would be available at town hall and that there would be an upcoming hearing. Confused as to what this was all about, I immediately contacted the Vail Homeowners Association for more data: Why had I not heard anything about this from the Association, or from reading the Vail Daily (which 1 get delivered to me here, at my main residence in Florida), from my realtor (Slifer, Smith & Frampton), builder (George Shaeffer), architect, etc.? This is utterly amazing for something of such potential impact on land use and property values. Jim Lamont hadn't seen the notice, and so had to scramble to investigate what was going on. His response, which I just got, raised more questions than answers for me. I am probably one of the largest property owners in Glen Lyon. I own a large house currently undergoing extensive renovations (the third and largest phase of a multi -year process), and I also own the lot next door. These properties represent an investment of many millions of dollars. We have had to work within the existing regulatory framework, and have made various compromises in our design simply because that's what the town and Design Review required. I remember asking my architect and builder why certain things had to be done a certain way, and they said 'that's just the way things are done here -- everyone has to live within the same constraints." While I wasn't pleased, it at least seemed fair- ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS LATER, THAT YOU INTEND TO CHANGE THE RULES, WITH VIRTUALLY NO PUBLIC INPUT? That will not do. I urge, no I demand, that you carefully consider the impact of any major changes to the current system, and guarantee that those of us most likely to be affected are given fair opportunity to understand the issues and to be heard -- in other words, due process, Ron Pollack Vail LLC PO Box 902 Clearwater, FL 33757 C� MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Review of substantive changes within the proposed text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett t. SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The purpose of this worksession is to update the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on the substantive elements of the proposed, new sign code for the Town of Vail. Staff anticipates making significant changes to much of the content and style of the latest iteration of the new draft code. Before completing those revisions, however, staff would like to give the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) a brief overview of the issues identified herein. ll. BACKGROUND AND GOALS OF REVISION The Town of Vail Sign Code was first adopted in 1973. Since that time there have been numerous revisions to the sign code. There were other major revisions that occurred in 1993 which resulted in increased sign area in West Vail and more specifically in the Commercial Core 3 and Arterial Business Districts. In recent years, the sign code has been variously labeled as: a) Too complicated b) Difficult to enforce, and c) Lacking a purpose statement. Also, it has been noted that the new code should reflect a changing market and have improved design guidelines that employ illustrations. All of the changes in the new code are designed to increase overall compliance and improve enforcement efforts_ The merchant community and staff have been working together on revisions to the existing code in order to correct the problems listed above. The Town Council has stated that total sign area should not be increased for the Vail and Lionshead villages based on the pedestrian nature of the villages. However, sign area could be increased in West Vail since those businesses depend on vehicular traffic versus pedestrian traffic. The following objectives shall be achieved in developing a revised sign code: • Develop a clear purpose statement for the sign code. • Develop a new sign code, complete with graphics, for the Town of Vail that contributes to the Town's vision statement of being the "Premier Resort Community_" Signage and display elements should add something to the Vail experience... not detract from it. • Make the code easier to understand and implement. • Make the code easier to enforce by the Town. The latest Draft document (3111103) produced by staff has been thoroughly reviewed and it has been determined that an entirely different format is necessary to achieve the desired results. Therefore, this memorandum and the subsequent work session will deal mostly with the substance of the proposed changes and not the actual, verbatim text amendments themselves. III. ROLE OF REVIEW BODIES Town Council: The Vail Town Council has the final authority in reviewing and approving a sign code amendment. To change the Sign Code requires approval on two readings of an ordinance. Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC): The PEC has the responsibility to hear variances on a sign code application. Since the sign code is in Chapter 11 of the Town Code, the PEC does not need to make a formal recommendation. 40 Design Review Board (DRB): The DRB has primary responsibility to review and make final decisions on sign applications. Although the code does not require a formal recommendation from the Design Review Board, staff would appreciate forwarding a recommendation from the Design Review Board on the revised sign code to the Town Council. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS A. Sign Code, Title 11 The following table provides several examples of how to calculate sign area and the available sign types for a business in both the Village and West Vail. In each category, the type of signage being sought is business identification for a tenant in a multi- tenant building. In the cases cited, wall mounted or projecting /hanging signs are the options to be utilized on their frontages. Window signs are limited to 15% of the total window area and cannot exceed 10 square feet of any window space. Additionally, one square foot of Joint Directory signage is allowed per major pedestrian way frontage and a display box / special board is permitted for restaurants at the standard size without being counted toward the total sign area. The method of calculation for Wall and Projecting / Hanging signs is: for every 5 feet of lineal frontage (on major ways), the business gets 1 square foot of signage. Combined maximum area for more than one projecting or hanging sign shall not exceed 20 square feet. Businesses with insufficient frontages are allowed 3 square feet. Businesses that are above or below the primary pedestrian grade are also only allowed 3 square feet. • • Examples of Existing Sign Code Business Lineal Wall Sign/Projecting Window Signs Other Totals Type Frontage Sign (15% of window 1 sq. ft. of sign / 5 ft of area) 2 max per linear frontage) or 2.5 frontage sq. ft of sign /5 ft of linear frontage in CC3 &ABD Restaurant 1 (1) 5 square foot (1) 2.6sq ft for (1) 5 sq ft. display 5 signs in Village Frontage hanging sign or 5 window signs if box and 17.6 sq. ft. with 1 = 25' square foot wall sign window (1) 4 sq. ft. special Frontage area= 17.5sq ft, menu in a multi tenant (1) 1 sq. ft. building directory sign Merchant 1 (1) 20 sq ft wall sign (2) Total sign area (1) 1 sq. ft. 4 signs West Vail. Frontage= (max size in CC3 and of 2 signs at 10 directory signs 41 sq. ft. CClll 75' ABD) sq. feet is 20 sq ft window sign if window area= 157 sq. ft, Example; East (1) 20 sq. ft Building 1D 2 window signs at (1) 1 sq. ft. 5 signs Business Frontage Sign 10 sq. feet each. directory sign possible in multi- = 50'& + total = 61 tenant, I the South sq. ft. frontages Frontage (1) 20 sq, ft. Business (CC3) = 50' ID sin wall sign B. Lionshead Master Plan On page 6 -2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan the plan states: Creativity is encouraged in individual retail business signage. Ordinary stock or prefabricated signage should be avoided in favor of custom designed and fabricated artisan signage. V. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE CODE: Sign Districts: The draft code proposes three sign districts. They include Sign District 1, which encompasses all of the Town of Vail, except for Commercial Core Area 3 (CC3) and the Arterial Business District (ABD), which is the area of the West Vail commercial district. Sign District 2 is the area in West Vail that includes the Commercial Core Area 3 and the Arterial Business District. Sign District 3 includes the new sign area approved for the West Vail Interchange that allows Colorado Department of Transportation business signs on Interstate 70. The existing code also differentiates between sign areas allowed in CC3 and ABD and all other zoning districts. (Sign District Map included as attachment for reference.) Purpose Statement and Applicability: The existing sign code contains no purpose statement or references to applicability in the first chapter of its title (Title 11). Much like the first chapter of the current Zoning Regulations title (Title 12 -1), the new sign code will begin with a clear purpose statement and specific terms of applicability, which would serve as objectives. The lack of a purpose statement was identified as a significant weakness in the current sign regulations by members of the public and town officials alike. Administration and Enforcement: Some of the more significant changes proposed in the new code include the ability to impose a daily fine of $75.00 on notified violators who choose not to comply with the regulations and notices from the town requesting removal of noncompliant signage. Each day that such violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. Additionally, staff is exploring the legality of shortening the notice period of 15 days in order to improve the overall efficiency of enforcement measures. Currently, it does not serve as much of a deterrent to displaying noncompliant signage because the penalty one faces is a citation at the end of 15 days of violation. Instead, more flexibility and the use of judgment are being proposed in the new draft that would allow code enforcement to determine, on the spot, how long the offender has to remove the sign before the town returns to remove it at the owner's expense. Being cited into court has not been a significant disincentive for people to continue to display illegal signage due to the inherent grace period before court action and the typically mild penalties handed down. The lack of any real "teeth" in today's enforcement language is what has lead to the rampant placement of noncompliant signage. In this regard, staff would like to take an inventory of all the illegal signs in town and develop a methodology for enforcing the regulations in a manner that will bring all such signage into conformance in an expedited manner. At present, the town is fairly well overwhelmed by a large number of illegal signs and the current enforcement measures are not sufficient to convince business owners that compliance is the best option. Display Boxes and Daily Special Boards: Currently there can be a total of nine square feet of signage allocated for both display boxes and daily special boards. These are typically two separate signs under the terms of the existing code. The draft code proposes one sign of 6 square feet that would accommodate both menus and daily specials. General Format and the Use of Graphics: Part of the impetus behind the effort to draft a new sign code has been the need for an easier to follow set of regulations. The merchant community has stated that the existing code is too complicated for most people to readily understand and use it correctly. Therefore, it is difficult to actually know when and why a sign is in violation, for the town and public alike, and to adequately enforce the regulations. The layout and style of the new sign code draft is meant to make it easier to understand and enforce. The following outline demonstrates the proposed format and structure of the new sign code: Chapter 1 Title, Purpose and Applicability Chapter 2 — Administration and Enforcement Chapter 3 — Definitions Chapter 4 — Sign Categories, Size and Quantity Chapter b — Design Guidelines The new sign code will also employ the use of photographic examples to depict what a "good sign" looks like. Outdoor Displays and Sale Signs: Currently promotional, or "x% Sale ", signs can be up for 30 days. The Town finds this regulation difficult to enforce and even harder to keep track of the duration a noncompliant sign has been up. The Draft Code would limit sale signs to approved 1.5 square foot signs that can not specify a percentage off or the amount of a sale. The Town has received complaints about liquidation sales and all the promotional signs that exist in Vail. However, it is usually the outdoor display racks of clothing and other merchandise that engender the majority of complaints about visual unsightliness. Staff has made the determination that outdoor displays are a matter of land use and should therefore be regulated by the Zoning Regulations, Title 12. Therefore, the PBC should be aware that staff will be coming forward with text amendments to Title 12 in order to more effectively regulate the use of outdoor displays. A Brief Sign Area and Number Comparison: When compared side by side, the draft code does allow more total sign area in West Vail for larger frontages. For smaller frontages it appears comparable. However, it has been generally agreed that West Vail merchants can have additional signage since they pull customers from a road versus a Vail Village merchant that is communicating the nature of their business to pedestrians. The comparison below compares the example in the previous table using the existing code and the same example using the draft code. Comparison of draft code and existing code Business Type Lineal Frontage Totals Existing Code) Total Draft Code Restaurant in Village 1 Frontage = 25' 5 signs 3 window, wall or projecting signs at a total of with 1 Frontage in a 17.6 sq. ft. 14 square feet + multi tenant building 6 square feet for a display board + I sq, ft. for directory Total 5 signs at 21 ft. Merchant West Vail i Frontage= 75' 4 signs 3 window, wail or projecting signs at a total of CCIII 41 sq. ft. 50 square feet + sq ft. for directory Total 4 signs at 51 s . ft. Example: 1 Frontage = 50' 5 signs possible total = 3 window, wall or projecting signs at a total of Business in multi- 61 sq_ ft. 50 square feet +40 sq. ft. for a building ID sign tenant, I frontages + 1 sq ft. for a directory (CO) (Like I" Bank Total in West Vail) 5 signs at 91 sq. ft. J Comparisons of existing businesses with current signs and allowed signs with draft code: Sign Zone Business Frontage (Sq ft ) Sign Area on business today (Sq €t ) — Allowed sign area with draft code fSCI ft ) Difference (Sq ft 1 Ore House 48 20 20 D 1 Russells 44 13 20 7 1 Penis Bar 24 7.6 18 10.4 1 Currents 26 7.22 14 6.78 1 Vail T -Shirt 14 3.125 12 8.875 2 MiZuppa 38 18.4 20 1.6 2' Ace Hardware 75 12 50 38 VII. INPUT FROM THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION On October 28" the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the draft sign code. Your comments included: • The questions in the outline are helpful in organizing the document. 40 • More sign area in West Vail is appropriate. • Create standards for residential name plates that do not require homeowners to come in for a DRB application. • Don't regulate content of for sale signs except from December 1 to March 31 Sales are good during shoulder seasons. Standards for sale signs are needed. • Generally the PEC was comfortable with the sign areas referenced in sign area table on page 30. • The number of signs should be limited on small frontages (1 or 2). • There should be no outdoor displays ever on Town ROW. • 1 sq. ft. for Directory signs is too small in West Vail — consider 1.5 or 2 sq. ft. The PEC will remain the regulating body for applications seeking Sign Variances. Attachments A. Sign District Map 9 6 V quaLupeliv ! ME MORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 2043 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and/or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Bill Gibson SUMMARY Through the review process of various zoning applications, problems arise with specific code sections that are not clear to applicants_ This often occurs with zoning code amendments, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to the Town Council to "clean- up" the Zoning, Subdivision, and Sign Code regulations. These amendments are not intended to amend the substantive content of the code, but rather to "clean -up" errors and clarify sections of the code. None of the proposed amendments result in a change of policy. Based upon staff's review of the criteria in Section V of this memorandum, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the requested text amendments, subject to the findings noted in Section VI of this memorandum. 11. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Town of Vail is proposing to amendment Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and /or corrections. The proposed text amendments are as follows: (deletions are shown in F**e- throughJadditions are shown bold) Chapter 12 -2; Definitions Section 12 -2 -2: Definitions LANDSCAPING: For the purposes of this title, natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, fawns, flower beds, and ground cover, shall be deemed landscaping together with the core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features, and like features not occupying m � o rr e � than twenty percent (20 %) of the landscaped area. Fer th r�o�r p se v Tthis atural o significant FA- jl 4;9es er native vegetation h o-- CJf f a�l teirl �.�° :'v iC�Il f �lrictor Jnei_rlo +r itio 1 e dis G„ Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments to the definition of "Landscaping" align the specific language of the definition with the established interpretation and implementation on this definition. In practice, both natural landscape elements and designed landscape elements are counted toward the minimum landscape area calculation requirements in all zone districts. Chapter 12 -2: Definitions Section 12 -2 -2: Definitions RECREA STRUCTURE. Any detached (i.e., not connected to any main structure or structures) covering erected over a recreational amenity which is not a seasonal structure. For the purposes of this title, a recrea -ti ^n ct� recreation structures shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structure is subject to design review. Staff Com These proposed text amendments to the definition of "Recreation Structure" correct a "Scrivners Error" (language inadvertently omitted) of Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2002. 0 Chapter 12 -2: Definitions Section 12 -2 -2. Definitions VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Vail Comprehensive Plan is an advisory master plan for the physical development of the Town of Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is the compilation of numerous planning documents that include the Vail Village Urban Design GuidelinesPVail Village Design Considerations (adopted June 11, 9980 and revised January 15, 1993), Ford Park /Donavan Park Master Plan (adopted August 5, 1985), Land Use Plan (adopted November 18, 1986), Vail Village Master Plan (adopted January 16, 1990), Streetscape Master Plan (adopted November 20, 1991), Transportation Master Plan (adopted January 1993), Municipal Cemetery Master Plan (adopted December 7, 1993), Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (adopted 1994), Environmental Strategic Plan (adopted 1994), Ford Park Management Plan(adopted April 14, 1997), Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (adopted December 15, 1998). Staff C These proposed text amendments create a definition of "Vail Comprehensive Plan ", which is commonly referenced in the Zoning Regulations yet not defined. The lack of a definition causes confusion and ambiguity in the administration of the Zoning Regulations. 0 E Chapter 12 -3: Administration and Enforcement S nG _QRpgujr It is UAIG)'■rfa al to 4ca o G G upy o r to e� oc p y n� e t iep t4 e.Feo f , er ite or- b ot h , may [Y GTTTT LII311'/1T 4 1 1 V5� 1 be- orantee i rl a d GonyeFte or a lter °- -unt a Ge l i finote of znninn ro a ms d d+r Me Llr•lrrninictratnr reWying that tl•+ P9P fOFTP& ga rnf_thic Title ■ rQ Perm ■ .. r . . . r w. +a • r . . b w. and t he L■ r Q ■ . r G om pliance= mav be . • Q . Z Q • _ o p per • Q . � ■ Q rr r . Q Q • . . r Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations which make reference to certificates of zoning compliance which have historically not been issued nor kept on file by the Administrator. Article 12 -61: Housing (H) District 12- 61 -12: Development Plan Contents 40 A S at rr ,.ar s &ha S miftecr- - an �nnlir�firn fnr �_ p ^r !e4f�lE3 ar sub�:piffa4-4.-quhrernents -maw+ ed or�by th ^ini&t ra#ar-4f it is nfamnns -4;a; t o the rritorio or t a t oth 4. Ap plica#� 6- ^,rir, #erefr# des pFOjesluding n , tU f � eelaparerseseprc�pe�ese , and phas;ng-p1ans-- the pro perty t o be inn',, led in tha w avekg4m fztpl includ leGa6orn of it rev n nts— ex;�ti -s nat *4- €natures -eXi egetatien-,- w �terGourses, and n erimete!!' �bf'8�6-F 1. ne n v�-v� rcel: ■ .. ��1:T:ae7a .. MOW r QD Q .. w plet ,? ©R+FI�-- �Ac�ySi& -9 �- t# e- ei�'- 2F�rApAS� �]�e�ElBp�?81? t inGluding a square K4Pg- &PaGaL&T 40 et& J r r- Gs ML I S - G . • it .. 1 r r � A I♦ r.Cr. w. a a r - r aGS -e •r Gra - ••• - r a �- sr I SIM . as • r a • e= +„ AvirMFIRM r • w b. I . f el l . G r• �Cr w •+ _.Gr.. •. +g •. u. w. MMIN r • • bJ r - - _ SWANEMMUMMISMIff r s• G r• s• The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development: Sta Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. Typically a jurisdiction's development application submittal requirements are not a codified part of the zoning regulations as they are in the Vail Town Code. By deleting these submittal requirements from the Zoning Regulations, application submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -7A: Public Accommodation (PA) District Section 12 -7A -8: Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 12 -7A -12 of this Article. Specifically, in determining allowable gross residential floor area the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density. € nit- shall-b ^^nt�^! a c e_haf 11 "2 of —1 --U for the n� iri�ncac of r� l(iult�tfnf� allowable units per aGFe Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language inadvertently inserted in this section of the Zoning Regulations by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2001. Article 12 -7A: Public Accommodation (PA) District Section 12- 7A -12: Exterior A Iteration or Modifica tions A2. Application; Contents: A a i f ^- xteri tign shag �J�e- fc�lJ�wigg: r . ...., _ .. .. the ... o f th . and addresses shag .. .s 4�qm the r-urrept taw- -records of Eag, .w w+ . rr r • r. + s — & be a w_w w -he VaU r_ - - 1 N a r r a s+ r r ieensed -su -tee dilating- ex- istip eenditi r4p t� nrnnerhi innlr rr fhe 1 8laat eaAs,`ep graphy-,and natural des- d. _A— curren title -epgFt to verify n5d�n�_ ershi onr/ P +EF36(J es -A -and e, E-4stipq and -r twe44ty feet (1 I ' _ - a = l !, S .• and P=nase b .... th e w rw. • .+ r• ! urban s .. - IWO .. a ! ■ !I 131 w aw 11 �r r. s •..• ■. .. • FS Cr • S .. + . a . _ —E q ui nox r r 3 Me 4- "Q a M r1' s o sou thW � - 4ec4iqatio n fn /inta 7 0-. f se_­ # ; 20- daeli a t is 00 C3 h A. 30 e-s r 20' GfeGApagen k�-y4a a � nq mode4-of-th"ropGsed-davel&pment SqW model cgs- ar+a��rajor -- site - i�pre�er�►ents a�- a d}asent . u.� •+ „� , AgxiaLt9 demonstra e speak reiationshi of the nronn etl e yele ment to hGgaGent n e rtigs __ pubkc, spas e&,-a, psi- a4opted- views- per�haeter 22 -of- this title .. . . IAI •. -d a 0 • MINN.- A! r .... . . r ■ +• ■ +• ■ ■ ■ 0 . w + •■ y The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -78: Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District Section 12 -78 -7: Exterior Alteration or Modifications A2, Application; Contents: An appiiGatio mow+ ltarati„n shall include the feldGw nn• a-.A-Gomp1eted, tbrFF, fJli fee and a li tof ill Gyyn s ofpr- yp9rty loeated ^t t o &4 ,lac# p^rcel- ,A -fWP llected-fer any evte qr alteration is Gply for ddi ' - of an exte dining - deck, however;-alt- other- applicabl fees shall he re ;; 4—.T- he owner s all -- includ ar n r 3e� ^ v - ! v: ^- ,cf , the ; m t aXng add c —a y r ega G h - an loP • �h�e ' p roperty (inoludin„-r the P nme of the nrenerh r i and the name an d fnailing- ae�dres e tube send represe -(if 7 appiiG • .. . Q C D d' . r • i pr r th e . e + r - r' a QQ W.70 WIMP • • r. . r.. . r Q. 4 r w r .Q w .w. r •� . title rePG4 to +in €y-- Gwnorghip,--e and _nfhnr_ en UMbFanr_;es, s� g. dr r l� d on { te r e. Exis4pg ap4pr&p e s it e p - ! a W1 pl an a Ga D D loGation 44 • • r . w• rr ? .r - 1 rr r Q r• ' e7 - - GC) PU�PGe 14 urban Q ' Vill e. ■ - • . . w • Q erations . - A, GtiGR& . e 0 w . ■ .. r .. w. • a lii rr Q r MW !1 a re • . rr. •• •• rG• �- a D.' -a .se a. - - •e _a- r- -Q Q Q - Winter solstiGe q snh�yy �� � ---s un-Angle {. 4H- 0 3 e-s nf n bout r _ , GfeGlipatign 2­0 AM, dHwesst-of ?f't °_rler-lingfi r+ n E an, f L prGpesee- lees pla s a— a -scale f -ef-e- fourth -i4 # - equals -exte fed }t (114" - _ �4&els. 0 O A • d dQd .• a r •.. SM a �• e eel w r a . r r r . r • d d j -A-R additioRa --+F} GE Fm _s- The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. St Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -7C: Commercial Core 2 (CC2) District Section 12 -7C -2: Requirements for Establishment: Development Plan: B. Development Plan Content: he d ^^rr°an -pla Shall 1;4A -44/ the fel e Rinri inform- atinnW 4—.Existing- topograp#"nd tr e r rr r . r r. r rr r• r. ddd " • ' ars e e r - e w - .e INA 1 • W E The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. Certain submittal requirements maybe waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filedin the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment= These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 92 -7C: Commercial Core 2 (CC2) District Section 12 -7C -5: ,Exterior Alterations or Modifications A2. 2. Application; Contents: AP ppkGFSfinn fi r nn it include the - fell •a _ee •e • •e-- NO shall S ! e. � w ar • w r r w • r w• w = • • + • + narpe r desGiripti Of rw _! ? S • r • • a an4-mailinq�-ad&--ss of-the c ondom ; . — ' am a . • + ■ .r! •e •r •■ w w • r u e. • r 6 • . w r i s 10 . � _ .. . .. ■+ a SO ?_ � e . e MF v �L pCLf..by- a.-lice ✓�1' ni inire�� nr i n4caf *g-exis]tin ; ih praperty 4id s of im r- oyemep , fnr7nn .raph a pate fo � f rv�n'ri VP 9 f�+�j .. ae e e s S S a !L �. �Th _ - ,,_ fpr4qI UqtQP1 abGve • • •• des kj"uide a: R T_Suplsha ► f s .. . L4 #4p h. e o!GloGk . •... f 11 A.U. ..... . . f If RM oommupity .....- de . e a pa tte r n —.T - 4 9 no . . -a `g this apa4��r ra � . 1• .. e setstice S UPApgle Via: l)l� - ,A. U. 30 a -east n f� 2:98 -P.Mes ose 6�° es: r�aie ■• fe a e R_ •• J MST e . R 1. ■ r r rpaw o the proposed .s + . ■.. +. e m odel shall ipGlude bugdipgs apd maj om e `f ne " f • .. ■ .= e • a to r- 11 �• w a r . r a - a a •+ r .•• a e • r .G ++ • ? I . • + a L� + r. • • a All I G` I •e - ra `s • } + a + r a . • r r • e . + • r ® . The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Com ment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -7E: Commercial Service Center (CSC) District Section 12 -7E -2: Requirements for Establishment; Development Plan B_ Plan Content: T4l e- deuelopme n FOR a e ` +� a e • G G ? e e e 4— Relat ionshl -des e18 U nf � , 0 sit - vrc to de e - rJfr ad }efning- srtp+=�i- 12 5. Such !`1ditional fn i fe r .m -qt as the Planning and l- Wr onrnnnfnl 6e$Sa Y - � 1 9 deyelnopmep p v ie +ifhin the Fo p e di t4a The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. Certain submittal requirements maybe waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is notrelevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. 0 Article 12 -7F: Arterial Business (ABD) District Section 12 -7F -2: General Circulation and Access Plan B. Plan Content: The gc er al nir� �Ti�n�n,_�nn Winn ch 1! chr t fhy following - infermati 3-4ngr4s &- and - egress at ea Sit -p-{e =: e! icr lar aGe sy-cle paths-a -d- pedestrian - walkways: • •• as• s� ee• .ear t � .•e 01 MIMI"- The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a general circulation and access plan application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is notrelevant to + the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents 13 that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 - 7H. Lionshead Mixed Use 7 (LMU -1) District Section 12 -7H -7: Exterior Alte r ations or Modifications 81 -b. Application, f'l-n Contents: _apoliGa . ^n for a m ex nr ltnrpN sh qll ipclodf-_ t� 4err+ • •: -- and a list ef ee .a e a srrip of the p,r ope r t y . • s e er-•• e __ .• w.•w r. • • • . • .. record e. 0 ? 1 • - � • e r fE7 _ .. e dp • � . � !•1 • • e + _ ■ P (.5 . ,iisfing and propose l cito nlon f , { T a �,.,ei- �Y�� f__ �� c , + ., { ,., r ity plar4 -att�- a }, --1y . d'hGw theprpjaGt— t�+_TftE7 I in i tG Me . — qun - d n — are n as - a iPGh-eq-Y tw&nt�-fe -20), a_roof hei ch I / la p one g a nd existing �nr! nrn �osed hrrifVding _ele v- 4gp -a _o �lt!'1 ' - equalC onl]_ft gG f'� /� " - 4� 43at FFTT i rial TTLTi listed above rant nrf r`mnrniimm�n -- �Y' el�d ^aad�vvrs- rc— �il�ia'�.�iZr+^' - a�rr-r c tz c�},VSJ` Pa , to demon ctr t — t he nrniont'c rn mpldan]e_-y ith- the L red&velopmant-maste,t--pA3n-. 0 14 r • •- •s G e G .? �, _.... .. a. ... A AA �... ..r.. t tee r•r r rr � .r• . r WIN TIIISi . . - a dt � • - — . r . • . s + • . • .. ■ r. � rr r +r • r. .. r t (an eeds -a and �bilarir� a+�alysis �d qualified ^rofe sslonaf r r y AWRAFM .. 3 . G that the RW . • / . G / ? . .. =e.. r.• . The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents 15 that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -71: Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LMU -2) District Section 12 -71 -7: Exterior Alterations or Modifications B2. 2. Ap plication; Contents: Ar4-a Iteratie� i n l.r rn -vrci ���- - -1 (�ft7h' - e ■- s_ a ■- e e .. .- _ c- ■- a se e Writ " s- a •• ■. a s .. r e ULM .. e .. ,� wr ■ . •. +. rr e ■ r 1 a =-e- e . Fv nd -pr9po ed -site plan a t of r P,9-4, et, -gva1& ty -f ee t 1 [ (I "' - r L 1 rn! { nisi# i n1 n �f �n on / r p g -t - i;l�lII�fL�he m +L ^�r in "ltiOP - s li . rj ___tV' -, t'' "'lG t�Tr'Ttp'T'r'b�4p areal T l�pe�alan -at-,a VL ��sale- of -�r� !" Ufat-- pl a„--a istin ieps - -a" mini _ Omar rn� c � Gaie of : ne e ; Othi , p e h eqUa _ list hall inslt e� } -boil 5 s ; � {�.� to _ d em,Gl c iTlTC , _ - _ the pre E;t-7 Ge Tanrn. f' vc �rrirkril ` II ` " `' 16 • e .. IDA +• `r • • a • d - • •.. • ... a. a . r ■ . r . r r . • a • r 1 11 • i, i' 1 1! + e � • i` d 1 w . �• F . T . .. w ... •r + ?- "11 ... i d _ d + • " n a;&in ed of � pesed-development_ -Said rp- ei nd vr i ", "C) rents o i aaGent nrepe tec a s deemed ece sary by th Ad m4nistrater. Th -of-M be as d9tennined by the Admi istrator- i. Pho er�s t y' the cry odic! relationsl}+;o -ot-- the - proposed ` ev e!Gpme � i cent pr - Per s, ublia space a{}{ a� p d 1fl�wc�Tpeep- r refer 72 of this T49e e' I'7a kinrr needs assessment and vehiG u rGulat} - �_� ��. l i fi nrm cv�r^vfc I .. . . - a . - - - . . r. . 'Iffeli MY .. .... + . S The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is notrelevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and is filed in the Department of Community Development. 17 Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application farms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -8D: Ski Base /Recreation (SBR) District 12 -8D -7: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS. A. S ubmit 144h The fegewing ipfoFmat4op a materials shall b sElbmitt+ed- with -a submittal req ru �+ ire mentr me, {, 1yaiyed nr mn.�di Pied Hip tiro dPginictrgtnur if is,demo tt?f r iU } 'vp - r A i z a ilin 1 Pr r ivvaifiR_ is PG appliGa'vi to the -e, view Gr#9 ria nr fhof n �. e!';�3r- +a6NGt�I- sF}l�tlerrS_i7 n,rn - eaehed , harm 1 " l •r •a - • • r r .. r. +*� +r. ! S e r ! . r . . - - e w r • . l oca ti on r wa ! rr r rrr w. li of the par-cq� 4 d title reran rt inrli irdinn cn h ���/lec9 f F Q tJ r, Plans depicting e xis� �� fl ,, ? , , , g - K621- (site - plan,,- (,sit- pla'ns, eh9 -vailF nc etc j ' , J enpltbQtJFC9r a 0 R.M. 011- . ... ........ r w r r • w •.� - ►r. • r . r and pmpose w e •r o ei i nch e• one •. a 1 w e • ! • 18 se impro is in-FeIa4oF4a atl -a di Ge nf nrn�,�p i f -� cr'+10 nnf t mf.lFor fh�n a anrh arra a�Jc fi ffir {oof 3 • .� ?� . .. • r rw '! !' .err... ... .. a ! G !!C ! r• G •• � GG S S - �r c.��rii�� n� �.y ' nl • n�r r r ri is /f. - r-1 f f ar than nno equal& wa feet 209 showin r+f:'-g la. d ., f at urac to - be e etaine n &qm p "&veiep face €ure,s s uch- - - -as. walkway&-apd water- fe a ture - � • G C opies R. Mod . _ o tion of _ G -ex at the ur o f ■ r e S O f the planni A t th e dis tion of the a i 4&tra S . w gh and eq& half ipGh by &k-yen inch (8 1, I !'� AqFmat -Afall t he . a a and e 0 G w r and hown r • . The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. Certain submittal requirements maybe waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town 40 Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process 19 involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council. Article 12 -9A: Special Development (SDD) District Section 12 -9A -5: Submittal Requirements: A. lnfi -)�- prmpfi rlal Requ red: The followinsr i f �nt ma-te —sh be "— be-- su -� pplisa #�e+q --Agr a spessat deiopmen distlrlet, Der swhmiff� re'••,�y sir rTfc me�� be WaiVe e a r M l ¢� �q. � }, r ,� - Fm ����,{ . 8,.�nr# i `1 ._� ]. ✓fllnnman{ if if itn mnn<* hh: — m�^# eria i l'� YY�Q..' Y b1,040- the- -de&kW r;t ecta 2 -e� ef-practical she Been- re,-w4 e&d =rr-nssrr 1 rya;�;� r�rr�:r r r Sr a +• _ tea -z •r s •+ r r , •• r+ •. • 31.E •. rrrr+ r r r r .� . e . • r r r • tour4ines n atural •_��� + • 1. r . a r w r.. �r 0 rr r 5 semplet '� o f 94stinn a nd-proposed- velo pp4ep t ta includ tag breakdoSw,n of llproposed uses, paFkaiuided and sit 6. pr Fite sm aller than nne inch eq ualstYYC•n#y-AgeT (1 2 0), uiFv lNing- th$-r' r-Gxim -ate oGa inns and ?enc i�vr�a11�E�� °� {� t�lres�dall- pral�cl sr {� ��°-- �^ pmera�fea�lres- ar e.. foo a p p earanGe o t he 0 . . ? de vel opm ent. • a • , I FOMOMMMEW is 20 d Photo a Rerf -+ys andlor - ether • ntn hPo� fnr.^le mnncfr�tinrr a vis rr Gf 4hhe- pr€3pas rletyelepment o f ra_� U nnt hie to nvic GGnd # ens. h y 1 IN f M. - .�� w •r •. a =e S eC ! •�• - . r •� a s ,w . r r r j} Fe4mnaPj IandsG pe -pla at a scale not smaller #ran ona ch- aquals twen4, f 0" - 20� sh9wing exi lUryrl ffeatuFee fn be retainer - sha ped site developme ffaa -s such s rcn d.;a,�aGi, lvs bike -�t n, f fs p er^dec�ri �s -- ova, - r-o �. � .,. v es , bike n - un - rc, and walkwayS__wate -f {fir s and ether elements 1 -: 2 . - ns�nQ.Pmental imnent eport - a - -Grd nee wj� Ghapter- _ f- this -44e-, unless waive by 9 e Gtj9.q 'r -?z moo,{ f#IS�Io- r a. ■- aa- •• s -e ® a e .. .. s .- . s y e: - a a ... A. wr .. .! e wo The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a special development district application. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is notreievant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail Comprehensive Plan, A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. Staff Comment. These proposed text amendments delete language in the Zoning Regulations that is redundant with the Department of Community Development's application forms. By deleting this language from the Zoning Regulations, these submittal requirements may be amended (when deemed necessary by Town Staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, or the Town Council) through an administrative process rather than a text amendment process involving a Planning and Environmental Commission public gearing followed by two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council_ 0 r1 Chapter 12 -11: Design Review Section 12 -11 -8: Performance Bond The Building Official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the Department of Community Development a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Town Council in the sum of one hundred twenty five percent (1251) of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. If said landscaping, paving, and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate of occupancy shall may be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond or other accepted security that has been approved by the Town. Staff Comment: These proposed text amendments align the language of this section with the accepted, historic practice of allowing the Building Official discretion in regard to the revocation of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Chapter 12 -15: Gross Residential Floor Area Section 12- 15- 3A -1d: Roofed or covered deck, porches, 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 ' forty four inches (44 ") in height. Section 12- 15- 3A -2g: Roofed or covered decks, porches, 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 (25l) 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 Fez; °zT(�34 forty four inches (44 ") in height and support posts with a diameter of eighteen inches (18 ") or less which are spaced no closer than ten feet (10') apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the outer surface of the post. Staff Comment. These proposed text amendments align this section of the Zoning Regulations with the minimum railing height provisions of the adopted building code. 22 Chapter 12 -16, Conditional Use Permit Section 12- 16 -8: Permit Approval and Effect Approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. Staff Comment: In accordance with Section 12 -16 -1 (Conditional Use Permits; Purpose; Limitations), Vail Town Code, conditional use permits are required for certain uses in certain districts because of their unusual or special characteristics and their effects on surrounding properties. When a conditional use is discontinued for an extended period of time, the characteristics of the surrounding properties may change and the future execution of the original conditional use permit approval may no longer be compatible or harmonious with the neighboring properties. Therefore, Staff believes that it is appropriate for the approval of a conditional use that has been discontinued for a period of two years or more to lapse and become void. These proposed text amendments further clarify the approval and effect of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Regulations currently do not include an explicit provision addressing the discontinuance of a conditional use, thus allowing any conditional use approval to be valid in perpetuity without regard to the actual execution of the conditional use permit. By practice, discontinuance requirements similar to the proposed text amendments have been applied to the approval for some conditional use permits. The proposed text amendments are similar to the Zoning Regulation provisions applied to the discontinuance of legal non- conforming uses. 1111. 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 23 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; and 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 or conditional use permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review application. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Councilor by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. The Town Council is responsible for final approvallapproval with conditionsldenial of a text amendment. The Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. 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. 0 24 0 IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12. Vail Town Code) Chapter 12 -1: Title, Purpose and Applicability 12 -1 -2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. Town Council Mission Statement We (i.e. Town Council) will provide the citizens of Vail and our guests with a superior level of environmentally- sensitive services and an abundance of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities, V. 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 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments further 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; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed text amendments are compatible with the Town Council's mission statement. 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 25 Staff believes that the proposed text amendments align the specific language of the Zoning Regulations with the accepted interpretation and implementation of the regulations. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations that are consistent with the Town of Vail master plans and development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval for of a text amendment: 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 40 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the above listed proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and/or corrections. 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 • 26 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Notice • 27 THIS ITEM! MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Attachment: A 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 Vail Town Code on March 24, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building_ In consideration of: 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 82 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L. Block 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and /or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations„ Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Matt Gennett 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 2 " 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 2 nd Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple - Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson • 1 TORW *YAIL Approved 4128103 N • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 24, 2003 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits : 1. Hud Wirth — Vail das Schone 1s Filing 2. Four Seasons -- 13 Vail Road 3. Sonnenalp — 20 Vail Road Driver: George 41:00 pm 42:30 pm NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final recommendation of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a change to the existing conditions of approval (Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2001), located at 100 East Meadow Drive /Lots M, N, & ©, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Waldir Prado, Daymer Corporation Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation of approval with modifications to expire the approval on September 4, 2004. Waldir Prado explained the request to extend the approval. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked if the recommendation of staff was based upon fairness and consistency for the approval process of the Special Development District and not based upon the fact that there was litigation involved. He noted that they favor approval of the extension, but that it is unfair to use the lawsuit as a basis of the extension of approval. • Rollie Kjesbo asked why the court case should have no bearing on the decision. MEMBERS ABSENT George Lamb Jim Lamont explained that it is not relevant. Approved 412$103 Erickson Shirley stated that he does not see things the way Jim Lamont does, but asked why the applicant requested the 2005 extension date. Waldir Prado stated that to obtain financing, he needed time after the litigation ended. Erickson Shirley asked about the timing. Waldir Prado stated that he could start demolition tomorrow, but to go to the lending community, he needs it to be litigation -free. Gary Hartman recused himself. Doug Cahill stated that he supported staffs recommendation. Chas Bernhardt stated that he did not believe that they were giving any special considerations with regards to the extension and if they need to go beyond the given date, the applicant can reapply. John Schofield stated that the applicant has been diligently pursuing this project. He further stated that the code allows for a phasing plan, and that phase 1 was litigation. He noted Chuck Lipcon's absence from this meeting. He supported staffs recommendation, and further stated that, if for legal reasons, it is unable to move forward, they would be willing to look at an extension to the project. Erickson Shirley stated that he would be open to an extension for any reason. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to recommend approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum. 0 Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 (Gary Hartman recused). 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Sections 12 -6B -2, 12 -613-3, 12 -6C -2, 12 -6C -3, 12 -6D -2, 12 -6D -3, Vail Town Code, to allow a Type Il employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type 11 employee housing unit as a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked that this item be made part of the discussion regarding GRFA reform. He stated that they found that in discussions regarding the Halaby Residence, that the approval of the EHU caused the building and parking area to get larger, which lead to the elimination of landscaping. He explained the development standard which requires the circulation of cars to occur on site. He stated that he would like to see this application discussed with GRFA and would like additional time to present this information to the public. 0 2 Approved 4128103 Gary Hartman stated that he believed that the timing of this application is very pertinent. He stated that changing EHU's from a conditional use to a permitted use will streamline the approval process. Doug Cahill reiterated Gary's comments. Chas Bernhardt and Rollie Kjesbo had no further comments. Erickson Shirley stated that he is in favor of this proposal. John Schofield stated that he believes that this will remove an impediment to EHUs and that as will all applications, applicants have the ability to appeal any staff decision to the PEC. He stated that the Housing Authority stated that they believed that GRFA had no impact on EHUs. Doug Cahill made a motion for approval. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 3. A request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -6D -3 (Conditional Uses), Vail Town Code, to allow for a private educational institution, located at Parcel B, a resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone 1 Filing, generally known as the "Hud Wirth" property. (A full metes & bounds description is available at the Department of Community Development upon request). Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning Planner: Allison Ochs Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until April 14, 2003. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 4. 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 2 d 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 2 "d Filing. Applicant: Nicollet Island Development Company Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jeff Winston commented on the proposal relative to the Town's Design Guidelines. Jeff noted that the treatment along the Frontage Rd. is appropriate for pedestrian circulation, and since the last meeting, the applicant has improved the pedestrian ways to Meadow Dr. He noted that the applicant could go further to pedestrian connection to Meadow Dr. Erickson Shirley asked if Jeff recommended sidewalks on only one or both sides of Meadow Dr. Approved 4/28/03 Jeff Winston noted that he was not familiar enough with the Streetscape Master Plan to comment. Allison Ochs commented that the sidewalks in this location are only along one side of the street. Erickson Shirley noted that this is an opportunity to examine this project in the overall context of Vail. Jeff Winston noted that the pedestrian connection will be very important to the hotel guests and commented on the building height at the locations where it meets with the Scorpio and the Alphorn. He said the Four Seasons needs to make an architectural gesture to these buildings. He commented that the scale of the roofs, specifically the amount of roof plain, needs to be further discussed. He gave an example: what does it look like from the Frontage Road or 1 -70, and what is the sense of scale compared to other buildings in Town, etc. Jeff feels that these are questions of just fine tuning the plans. Tim Losa presented the changes to the proposal that have occurred since their last presentation to the PEC. John Schofield asked Tim to confirm that all loading and delivery will be occurring from Frontage Road. Tim Losa confirmed this and commented on relocating parking for Nine Vail Road to the southern portion of the Nine Vail Road property. John Schofield noted that the PEC will want to see the parking agreements between the Four Seasons and Nine Vail Road as part of the final submittal package. Tim Losa described the locations for proposed public art opportunities and pedestrian connections. John Hill addressed the previous PEC and DRB comments pertaining to the hotel building itself. He also described the changes that have occurred since their last presentation to the PEC. He further described the roof form, massing, and hierarchy. He described the pedestrian and vehicular circulation for the building, and then presented an overview of the layout for the various hotel spaces. He also further noted that the internal circulation will accommodate the turning movements of a Cisco or beer truck sized vehicle which will address 99% of their deliveries. Tim Losa commented on how the proposed deviations from underlying PA zoning are acceptable given the proposed public benefits. He noted that the roof height is equivalent to the former proposal, however, the building has been shifted to the south and thus increased the measured building height. He commented on the proposed setback encroachment adjacent to Nine Vail Road. He commented on the unusual lot line configuration in this location. Tim noted that the new hotel project will generate approximately half the vehicular trips of the existing hotel and gas station. He further described the anticipated parking /traffic demands generated by this proposal. He commented that they have submitted for CDOT access permits for the proposal and next presented the public improvement plan including streetscaping and other improvements. Erickson Shirley asked Tim to further describe the extent of the streetscape improvements. Tim Losa noted the location of the improvements and commented that the sidewalks will be snowmelt heated. 4 Approved 4128/03 I Tim Losa described the surveying of Spraddle Creek and the proposed relocation of the creek. The PEC took a 15 minute recess to allow the Commissioners and the public an opportunity to O l review the applicants' presentation materials. Richard Kent, president of Scorpio Condo Assoc., expressed their continued concerns about the mass of continuous walls for the proposed hotel adjacent to their building. They are also concerned about any compromising of their building do to the proposed excavation so close to their property line. John Schofield noted that the excavation is addressed by the building code.. Gwen Scapello, Nine Vail Road, commented that this project needs a larger site and parking, as parking for Nine Vail Road continues to be a concern. She said there are 27 units and 27 enclosed parking spaces and in the winter this is adequate, however, in the summer season they do not have adequate parking. She said they also do not have adequate parking for service /maintenance vehicles, which are too large to access their parking structure. John Schofield asked if they have explored parking at the Gateway for their owners. Gwen Scapello commented that they have explored that option, but it is cost- prohibitive. Chas Bernhardt asked if the outdoor parking is monitored. Gwen Scapello answered that they are monitored. Doug Cahill questioned if their main concern is for larger contractorlmaintenance vehicles. 0 Gwen Scapello replied yes. RG Jacobs, a maintenance worker for Scorpio and Alphorn, commended the applicant on the revisions, but still sees room for improvement. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, expressed excitement about the communication between property owners to work together to improve a project. He said the applicant has done a very good job of working with adjacent property owners and also noted that the involvement of Jeff Winston has been a positive addition to the process. He commented that the northwest . and southwest corners as needing further refinement and that the potential exists for a closed neighborhood space such as the Scorpio parking lot. He said his group doesn't want to be involved, but they want latitude for the property owners to work together. Rollie Kjesbo commented that setback encroachments underground are not a concern. He questioned if the applicant has considered a land swap with Nine Vail Road for the unusual property line configuration. He has concerns about roof height on the southeast corner. He questioned how overflow parking will address large groups and the applicant noted that the parking structure will accommodate the ball room, but also commented that parking needs to be worked out with Nine Vail Road. Erickson Shirley noted concerns about minimizing the construction impact to the street and timing the construction improvements with the Meadow Drive streetscape plan. He noted that it's in the best interest of the community for the hotel guests to have pedestrian access to Meadow Drive and to the in -Town bus, as this project will help connect Lionshead and the Village. Doug Cahill was impressed with the changes to the proposal and withdrew his past "cruise ship" comments. He noted the importance of the DRB's review of the project. He commented Approved 4/28/03 that using a 3D computer model of the project may be helpful. He agreed with Jeff Winston's comments about pedestrian circulation, and he was okay with the proposed setbacks. He questioned Tim about the potential EHU numbers. Tim Losa responded that the will be increasing their EHU numbers. Doug Cahill commented that parking for contractor /maintenance vehicles at Nine Vail Road still needs to be addressed, but overall he is impressed and thanked the applicant for working with the neighbors. Chas Bernhardt noted that a land swap, but not sale, with Twine Vail Road may need to be explored. He questioned if a utility truck could be could be parked at the Four Seasons for Nine Vail Road. He said he is not in favor of additional parking along Meadow Drive. Allison Ochs clarified the proposal for relocated parking for Nine Vail Road along Meadow Drive. John Schofield commented that he agreed with Jim Lamont that Jeff Winston's input has been helpful. He noted that the applicant has the opportunity to make this project something special with being located at a premier location in Vail. He would like to see greater detail on the design of this corner. The PEC is asking staff to examine the cumulative effect of all the redevelopment of this area of Town. He would like to see the use of 3D modeling explored. He discourages the use of a private shuttle to the ski mountain, but to rely more on the Town bus system. He said the hotel shuttle should be used to transport people to other locations. He recommended relocating the bus stop on Frontage Road to better accommodate their hotel guests. He encouraged the applicant to continue working with Nine Vail Road. He noted that the design is close to the PEC's requirements, but may need further review by the DRB. The two foot setback in the corner doesn't bother him, but a land exchange can be considered. He said the underground encroachments are acceptable. He said the PEC is asking Staff to prepare a complete list of off -site improvements and their extent. He is not concerned if there are 33 or 34 EHU's. He recommended relocating the bus stop rather than building a heated sidewalk to the existing bus stop. He acknowledged that building height may be the biggest remaining issue. He has asked staff to compare the building height elevations to the street elevations. He asked that the applicant to submit further details concerning the operation of the fractional fee club. Doug Cahill commented that the massing model looks good, but additional landscaping and screening may be needed along Meadow Drive. Jeff Winston commented that the fagade elevation could be adjusted near the Scorpio and Alphorn, and that roof massing may need to be adjusted. He recommended that some of the proposed chimneys and elevator overruns may need to be eliminated. He also commented that the model in context of the whole Town would be helpful. Jim Lamont questioned if additional bus stops could be examined instead of relocating the existing shuttle. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant to comment on the use of the Town's shuttles. The response from the applicant was that if it is more convenient, then it is something they will consider. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 14, 2003 meeting. 0 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. 6 Approved 4/28103 The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. 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 fractional fee club; a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a text amendment Section 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 20 Vail Road, 62 E. Meadow Drive, and 62 E. Meadow Drive /Lots K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc_, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther/1Narren Campbell Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 14, 2003 meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) regulations in the Hillside Residential (HR), Single - Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family Residential (R), Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple- Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple- Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple - Family (HDMF), and Housing (H) districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson reviewed the staff memo and stated that staff is requesting additional direction on this application. Vicki Pearson reviewed the intent behind the application. She stated that people should be able to maximize what they do underneath a building and within their shell. Estacquio Cortina agreed with Vicki Pearson's position. He felt this could improve the economic vitality of Vail by creating more flexibility for the developer Jim Lamont stated that his organization would be open to meeting with the applicants group. He felt that a longer discussion is needed. Jim feels the County has a good process for policy change. He said he has not been impressed with the dialogue with staff. Erickson Shirley questioned Jim's commentary. Jim Lamont indicated his opposition to the process. Carol Cook, a local real estate agent, stated this policy change in GRFA would help intent 40 improvements on private property and also felt that the GRFA formula is complicated to understand. Approved 4128/03 Larry Eskwith believes that this review of GRFA has been a long term problem. He stated that every time the Town has tweaked the GRFA policy, it has been made more complicated. He also believes that people are illegally creating floor area and they are doing it without building permits and creating unsafe situations. Larry thanked the staff and the applicant for the thoughful work that was done. Gwen Scapello stated that she was a real estate agent and that in her previous community her community took measures to protect the older structures. She believed that it is a critical check and balances Lynn Fritzlen stated that the professionals in her office want to get rid of GRFA. She felt that professionals do manipulate the system. She felt site coverage and design guidelines can effectively deal with bulk and mass. She did feel that we should closely look at removal of GRFA for multi - family zone districts. She felt that GRFA does work against safety in mechanical spaces. Lynne also stated that FAR has been around for a while and it could be simpler. Lynne stated that we need to project the built environment, while creating more flexibility. John Schofield asked Lynne whether our DRB regulations are adequate to control bulk and mass. Lynn Fritzlen thought we would still need some quantitative standards to effectively control bulk and mass. Steve Ridden admitted that he has cleverly worked around the regulations. He felt it would be ok to put more on the DRB and give them better standards for reviewing applications. He argued to make regulations more qualitative vs. quantitative. Steve stated that we need better standards with the design review process. Steve offered to talk more with Jim Lamont's group. is Kyle Webb stated that he shares some of his concerns with Jim. Kyle stated that he is willing to work with others to create new solutions. Kyle also stated that eliminating GRFA would increase property values at the end of the day. Chuck Baker asked about staffs response on this issue. Russell Forrest responded to that question and restated some of the concerns expressed in the staff memo. A developer stated that a formula is needed to rely on and stated that he would be concerned if site coverage was reduced. Steve Ridden stated that we need to think about EH Us further and he questioned whether the EHU incentive was effective. Lynne Fritzlen suggested making all sub grade not count towards GRFA Gary Hartman said he believes there is a simpler solution. He stated that he wished Jim Lamont would have stayed. He said his recommendation is to eliminate GRFA and use the existing guidelines, but with more specific bulk and mass guidelines and we may want to consider a max limit on GRFA or setbacks. Doug Cahill encouraged the public to provide their comments to staff and stated we should have maximums on GRFA. Doug believes we need to keep the same basic mass and we need to keep some measure of floor area to reduce the complexity of this change. Approved 4/28143 ' Chas Bernhardt said he felt it was good that people in the community can come forward and suggest changes in the code, as it was part of the democratic process. He said subterranean space should not count towards GRFA. He felt that there should be a limit to bedrooms or that bedrooms should be connected to parking and generally felt the other development parameters work well. Rollie Kjesbo said he believes we should do a way with GRFA, but don't reduce site coverage on all lots. He indicated that we should study lot sizes more and evaluate a max of FAR and/or site coverage. Erickson Shirley said he can not make sense of GRFA today. He does not feel it is logical that you can not have basements in the Town of Vail. He felt that the argument that eliminating GRFA would destabilize the real estate market is not valid. John Schofield said anything that has been changed 13 times has a problem. He said setbacks, height, and site coverage create the box and GRFA controls what goes on in the box. He also asked staff to discuss this with DRB to ask, if in their opinion, if they have enough regulations to control bulk and mass. He said if GRFA is eliminated then we need a specific parking requirement, with a portion of that parking being covered. John asked for more specific information on lots and their development potential, especially the large lots in the Town of Vail. John also reiterated the Housing Authority that GRFA does not impact EHUs. John asked on page 7 of the memo, about net floor area and how to address parking and also asked about a net floor area definition, John was concerned that GRFA has created a safety issue and an equity issue and we also need to create an amnesty issue. John suggested we look at options for a cap on FAR and we look at site coverage on larger lots. The PEC indicated their support unanimously to eliminate GRFA, with the condition that staff make recommendations on how to change other development and or design guidelines to keep building in line with bulk and mass of existing homes today. Lynne Fritzlen asked that we evaluate graphically the trade -offs between the various tools. Chas Bernhardt only believes we need to worry about larger lots and felt a maximum cap on floor area is a good approach. Rollie Kjesbo still wondered about the trade -off with how to approach the alternatives and wanted more information on those trade -offs, Erickson Shirley believes there are adequate protections for the smaller lots and the issue is on larger lots. Erickson believes we still need good criteria and objective standards for reviewing projects if we eliminate GRFA. John Schofield was also open to an adjustment of site coverage and /or landscaping. He said DRB may need some additional tools to regulate bulk and mass. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 28, 2003 meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail E Approved 4/28103 Planner; Matt Gennett ` Matt Gennett presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He made special note that outdoor commercial sales and displays will be regulated as part of the zoning regulations and not as part of the sign regulations. Rollie Kjesbo had no comment.. Erickson Shirley had no comment. Gary Hartman had no comment. Doug Cahill had no comment. Chas Bernhardt asked if the merchants have been involved. Matt Gennett commented that the merchants have been heavily involved in the revisions process. John Schofield recommended that staff contact sign contractors to receive any input they may have. Rollie Kjesbo made a motion to table this to the April 28, 2003 meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, for proposed "house keeping" amendments and /or corrections, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail {Manner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson gave an overview of the staff memo and stated that some feedback has been received, from Dominic Mauriello. Bill asked for any comments. Rollie Kjesbo had none. Doug Cahill asked what Dominic's comment was. Bill Gibson answered that Dominic asked why all the plans under the rubric of "comprehensive plan" (i.e. the cemetery plan) would apply to dissimilar proposals. George Ruther gave clarification on the rationale behind why all plans need to be part of a comprehensive plan. Chas Bernhardt had no comment. Gary Hartman had no comment. John Schofield agrees that "physical" can be taken out of the comprehensive plan language, as it is already covered in other parts of the code. Doug Cahill made the motion to approve the text amendments as written with the condition that the definition of "Vail Comprehensive Plan" be r revised to eliminate the word 10 I Approved 4/28/03 s • "physical." Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 9. 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 requirement for loading berths & setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 14, 2003 10. Approval of March 10, 2003 minutes Gary Hartman approved the minutes of 3110103. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 (Rollie abstained). 11. Information Update © Greg Amsden text amendment proposal 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 C]