HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0808 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 8, 2011
�. 1:OOpm
TOWN OF VAII, '
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
60 minutes
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments
to Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on the
lowest level of a structure that contains a garage in the Hillside Residential, Single - Family
Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Districts,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110043)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 minutes
2. A request for the review of a variance, pursuant to Section 14 -1 -5, Variances, Vail Town Code,
from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation
of solar panels extending higher than one foot above the building ridgeline, located at 4918
Meadow Drive, Unit A/Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC100046)
Applicant: Warren Dean, represented by Capitol Solar Energy
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Table to August 22, 2011
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 minutes
3. A request for review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior
Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack
Building), located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2 /Lot D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing , and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110045)
Applicant: Margo Mullally, represented by Mark Donaldson
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Table To August 22, 2011
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
4. Approval of July 25, 2011 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5. Information Update
6. Adjournment
MOTION: SECOND:
Page 1
VOTE:
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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 information.
Community Development Department
Published August 5, 2011, in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
TOWN OF VAIL ¢
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 8, 2011
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation
amendments to Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, pursuant
to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross
residential floor area on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage in the
Hillside Residential, Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family
Primary /Secondary Residential Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC110043)
Appellant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
I. SUMMARY
The appellant, Kathy Langenwalter of Peel / Langenwalter Architects, has filed an appeal
of the Administrator's interpretation of Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA), Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on the
lowest level of a structure that contains a garage. As stated in the submitted appeal,
the appellant contends that "the method used by the planning staff for applying GRFA
exclusions is not in accord with the process outlined in the zoning regulations."
II. BACKGROUND
GRFA is a zoning control tool that regulates the density and intensity of residential land
uses. GRFA also controls building bulk and mass when used in conjunction with other
zoning tools such as setback, height, site coverage, and landscaping requirements.
GRFA is the square footage measurement of the total floor area within a residential
building. Each zone district in Vail that allows residential land uses has a prescribed
GRFA square footage limit. All "horizontal areas" (i.e. floors) of a residential building
are counted toward this maximum allowable square footage, with the exception of
certain "deductions ".
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Section 12 -15 -3, Definitions, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, states (in
part):
a. 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.
Staff interprets Section 12 -15 -3, Definitions, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town
Code, such that the floor area of a garage on the lowest level of a structure is deducted
from the total GRFA square footage calculation utilizing the "enclosed garage area"
deduction and that same floor area of the garage in not deducted a second time from
the total GRFA square footage calculation by utilizing the "basement" deduction. Staff
does not interpret the code to allow the same portion of a home to be deducted multiple
times from the calculation of GRFA. Staff's interpretation is based upon the adopted
language of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, and Town Council policy direction
associated with the adoption of that ordinance.
VI. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant and Staff have differing interpretations of Section 12 -15 -3, Definitions,
Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, related to the procedures for calculating
GRFA for a building with a garage on the lowest level.
Staff interprets Section 12 -15 -3, Vail Town Code, such that the floor area of a garage on
the lowest level of a structure is deducted from the total GRFA square footage utilizing
the "enclosed garage area" deduction and that same floor area is not then deducted a
second time from total GRFA square footage utilizing the "basement" deduction
provision. Staff does not interpret the code to allow a garage to be deducted multiple
times from the calculation of GRFA square footage.
The appellant interprets Section 12 -15 -3, Vail Town Code, such that the floor area of a
garage on the lowest level of a structure is deducted from the total GRFA square
footage utilizing the "enclosed garage area" deduction and then that same floor area is
deducted a second time utilizing the "basement" deduction provision. The Appellant
interprets the code to allow a garage to be deducted multiple times from the calculation
of GRFA square footage.
Based upon the submitted letter and appeal form, the appellant is not appealing Staff's
interpretation of Section 12 -15 -3, Vail Town Code, that the floor area of crawlspaces,
attic spaces, or employee housing units located on the lowest level are not deducted a
second time from the calculation of GRFA square footage by utilizing the basement
deduction.
Based upon the appellant's letter dated April 20, 2011 and the attached appeal form,
Staff has identified the following items as the nature of this appeal:
• The appeal has been filed because Staff's interpretation affects the
development rights of clients.
Town of Vail Page 2
• The appeal contends that the calculation method used by Staff is not in
accord with the zoning regulations.
• The appeal contends that the same development rights are not afforded to
neighbors.
Staff's response to the appeal:
• The appeal process is not intended to grant exceptions to, or change, the
provisions of the Vail Town Code through re- interpretation. The appeal
process is not intended to bypass the variance or town code amendment
processes.
• Staff's interpretation of the Vail Town Code is consistent with the adopted
language of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, and policy direction of the
Town Council from the review of that ordinance.
• By their very nature zoning regulations may not be equitable, and that is
the purpose for having a variance process in the town code. The Town
Council took into account the different effects of the GRFA regulations
during their deliberations of ordinance No. 14, series of 2004.
• Staff has consistently applied the same interpretation of the town code
since the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004.
• Until the filing of this appeal, Staff has not received any public comment
indicating that homes in Vail are too small or that the basement deduction
GRFA calculations are too restrictive.
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM 1 STAFF RESPONSE: THE APPEAL PROCESS IS NOT INTENDED TO GRANT
EXCEPTIONS TO, OR CHANGE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE
THROUGH RE- INTERPRETATION. THE APPEAL PROCESS IS NOT INTENDED TO
BYPASS THE VARIANCE OR TOWN CODE AMENDMENT PROCESSES.
Based upon Staff's discussions with the appellant, the referenced clients would
like to construct residential additions; however, these desired additions exceed
the allowable GRFA limits prescribed by the Vail Town Code. Staff believes
there are no less than four options available to address this scenario:
• Change the design of the additions to comply with the GRFA limits.
• Request a variance from the GRFA limits.
• Propose an amendment to the GRFA regulations.
• Appeal Staff's interpretation of the GRFA regulations.
Town of Vail Page 3
Reducing the size of a proposed addition to comply with the GRFA limits of the
Vail Town Code, while being consistent with the community's development
objectives and equitable with other property owners in Vail, may not achieve the
outcome desired by the clients.
Applications may be submitted for a variance from the GRFA regulations.
However, few GRFA variances have been approved since the Town's adoption
of the 250 Ordinance and the Interior Conversion additional GRFA provisions in
1995 and 1997. In 2004, the Town Council rejected the notion that any loss of
development potential from the 2004 GRFA amendments would justify a variance
(page 3, July 6, 2004 Town Council memorandum).
Applications may be submitted to amend the Vail Town Code. Such a proposal
has an application fee of $1,300 and as demonstrated by the 21 month review of
the last amendments to the GRFA regulations (Ordinance No. 14, Series of
2004); significant time may be associated with an application to amend the Vail
Town Code. Additionally, an amendment application must be reviewed by both
the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council.
An appeal of the Administrator's interpretation of the GRFA regulations has no
application fee and may only require a single public hearing before Planning and
Environmental Commission. Staff does not believe the appeal process is
intended to grant exceptions to, or change, the provisions of the Vail Town Code
through re- interpretation. Staff does not believe the appeal process is intended
to bypass the variance or town code amendment processes.
ITEM 2: THE APPEAL CONTENDS THAT THE CALCULATION METHOD USED BY
STAFF IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
The appellant's April 20, 2011 letter states:
"As an architect recently working on 3 different projects with the TO V, it has
come to my attention that the method used by the planning staff for applying
GRFA exclusions is not in accord with the process outlined in the zoning
regulations. "
The submitted appeals form states:
"This appeal concerns the difference between the plain written language of the
GRFA ordinance and the method by which the planning staff applies the
ordinance. Specifically, the ordinance states that all floor area on all levels shall
be calculated and then the listed exclusions are to be calculated from that total.
The list of eight GRFA exclusions includes enclosed garage area as well as
basements. These are listed as two separate exclusions to be deducted for a
garage located on the lowest level of a structure. In this type of construction they
exclude the garage area from the basement deduction and apply it on to what
they term GRFA or livable area. "
Town of Vail Page 4
The submitted appeals form states:
"The diagram titled `Lowest Level Floor Plan House A' show two floor plans for
the lowest level of `House A'. The floor plan and calculations on the left show
how the staff determines the GRFA exclusions when a garage is located at the
basement level of a structure. Simply stated, they do not allow the basement
exclusion for the garage floor area although it is set back into the hillside."
The submitted appeal form states:
"The planning staff's reasoning for disallowing the basement exclusion for garage
area is that a floor cannot have more exclusions that it has floor area. However,
the ordinance clearly addresses what may or may not be included in figuring both
enclosed garage area and basements but there is no discussion that excludes
garage area from the basement deduction.
ITEM 2 STAFF RESPONSE: STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE VAIL TOWN
CODE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED LANGUAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 14,
SERIES OF 2004, AND POLICY DIRECTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL FROM THE
REVIEW OF THAT ORDINANCE.
In September of 2002, Vicki Pearson submitted a formal application to the Town
of Vail requesting amendments to the adopted GRFA regulations. Ms. Pearson's
application was intended to address a below -grade media room constructed in
her unit at the Vail Townhouse Condominiums without Town of Vail design
review or building permit approvals. Since all the allowable GRFA for her unit
had already been built before the media room was illegally constructed, the
media room did not comply with the Town's adopted GRFA limits. Ms. Pearson
had the options of demolishing the new media room or requesting amendments
to the Town's adopted GRFA regulations. Ms. Pearson proposed either
eliminating the GRFA regulations or amending the regulations to not count
basements as part the GRFA square footage calculations.
There were twenty -one (21) months of public review and debate of the proposed
GRFA amendments beginning with the October 14, 2002 Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) hearing and ending with Town Council's July
20, 2004 hearing. In addition to the numerous PEC and Town Council public
hearings, the Town of Vail also formed a GRFA Reform Focus Group composed
of local residents, architects, contractors, realtors, attorneys, etc. to provide
additional insight and input to the public review process.
The Planning and Environmental Commission supported a complete repeal of
the Town's GRFA regulations. The Town Council did not support repealing the
GRFA regulations in whole, but the majority of the Council members were open
to possible amendments within certain residential zone districts. The majority of
the Town Council did not support extending any amendments to the GRFA
regulations to the commercial and mixed -use zone districts (e.g. Pubic
Accommodation, Commercial Core 1, Lionshead Mixed Use I, etc.).
Town of Vail Page 5
On July 20, 2004, the Town Council approved the second reading of Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 2004. The approval of this ordinance not only adopted a
basement deduction to the GRFA square footage calculations, but also adopted
several other changes to the GRFA regulations:
Changes to what counts as GRFA:
• Exterior building walls are counted as GRFA.
• Vaulted spaces are counted as GRFA.
• Basements are not counted as GRFA (i.e. a proportional deduction)
Changes to the amount of GRFA allowed:
• Previous GRFA formulas and GRFA bonuses were consolidated.
• The allowable GRFA formulas were increased by 10% to account for
exterior walls being counted as GRFA.
• The allowable GRFA formulas were increased by 15% to account for
vaulted spaces being counted as GRFA.
Other changes:
• Residential parking requirements were increased.
• The definition of site coverage was clarified.
• Construction excavation and site disturbance guidelines were
established.
In 2004, the Town of Vail amended the GRFA regulations to include a
proportional deduction for basements within certain residential zone districts
(Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004). The purpose of the basement deduction
was to "increase the amount of allowable GRFA in all residential zone districts,
with the intent that the increase be located below -grade and not dramatically
increase the above -grade building bulk and mass" (page 8, July 6, 2004 Town
Council memorandum).
The underlying concept of the basement deduction is that the less exterior wall
area that is visible from outside the house, the greater the GRFA deduction given
to the basement. The GRFA basement deduction is a ratio of the buried versus
exposed exterior wall surface area of a building's lowest level. If the lowest level
of a residential building is constructed completely above grade, the floor area on
this level of the building receives no GRFA deduction (0 %). If the lowest level of
a residential building is constructed completely below grade and no portion of the
basement's exterior walls are exposed, the floor area on this level of the building
receives a full GRFA deduction (100 %). The majority of residential buildings
within the Town of Vail have portions of the lowest level constructed both above
and below grade, and therefore most residential buildings have a GRFA
basement deduction somewhere between zero percent (0 %) and one - hundred
percent (100 %).
Town of Vail Page 6
In addition to basements, the Town's adopted GRFA regulations also allow
deductions of floor areas for garages, attics, crawlspaces, patio /decks, and
employee housing units. In some residential buildings, these deductible floor
areas may be located on the lowest level of the building. When calculating the
GRFA square footage of the lowest level of a residential building, any garage,
crawlspace, patio /deck, or employee housing unit located on that level is
deducted in accordance with the allowable deductions for those uses. These
floor areas are deducted square foot - for - square foot (100 %) from the GRFA
calculations. The GRFA deductions for garages and employee housings units
are capped at a maximum square footage amount.
After any garage, crawlspace, patio /deck, and employee housing unit floor areas
have been deducted from the lowest level of a residential building, the
proportional basement deduction is applied to any remaining floor area on that
level. Based upon the adopted GRFA regulations and the Town Council's policy
direction, floor areas do not receive multiple deductions. Basements, garages,
attics, crawlspaces, patio /decks, etc. are intentionally given "deductions" from the
GRFA square footage calculations, and not "credits" or "bonuses ". Deductions
from the GRFA square footage calculations are only applied to constructed floor
area, and credits or bonus are not given for constructing less than the maximum
deduction limit.
For example, in the Two - Family District the garage floor area may be deducted
up to maximum of 300 square feet per parking space, a maximum of two parking
spaces per allowable dwelling unit. A Two - Family District property with
conforming lot size may deduct a maximum of 1,200 square feet of built garage
floor area from the GRFA calculations (2 units x 2 spaces each = 4 total spaces;
4 total spaces x 300 sq.ft. = 1,200 sq.ft.). If a homeowner chooses to construct a
1,000 square foot garage; all 1,000 square feet of that garage floor area is
deducted from the GRFA calculations. A 1,000 square foot garage does not
receive a 1,200 square foot deduction from the GRFA calculation. Under - utilized
GRFA deductions can not be used to construct other types of floor area. For
example, constructing a 1,000 square foot rather than 1,200 square foot garage
does not result in a new 200 square foot bedroom.
While various basement deduction policies and methodologies were considered
and debated; in 2004, the Town Council chose to implement a proportional
basement deduction based upon a ratio of the exposed versus buried surface
area of a basement's exterior walls. During its July 2004 deliberations, Staff
directly asked the Town Council how GRFA should be calculated when garages,
crawlspaces, patio /decks, and employee housing units were located on the
lowest (basement) level of a building. The methodology approved by the Town
Council is as described above in this memorandum: garages, attics,
crawlspaces, patio /decks, and employee housing units are deducted first and
then the basement deduction provision is applied to any remaining floor area on
the lowest level. At that time, Staff and the Town Council believed the language
of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, adequately communicated this policy.
Town of Vail Page 7
A more detailed account of the Town Council's final deliberations of the 2004
GRFA amendments are in the attached July 6, 2004 and July 20, 2004 Town
Council memos and meeting minutes (Attachments D and E). The Town Clerk's
Office only maintains the audio and video recordings of the Town Council
hearings in accordance with the minimum retention schedule prescribed by
Colorado state law, so the audio and video recordings (i.e. the verbatim minutes)
of the Council's 2004 public hearings no longer exist in the Town's archives. Staff
contacted Channel 5 Vail Valley Community TV who records the Town Council
hearings, and they no longer have the audio or video recordings from the Town
Council's July 2004 hearings in their archives.
The Town Staff attended all 21 months of public hearings for Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 2004, and hereby testifies that the Vail Town Council specifically
deliberated the methodology for calculating GRFA on the lowest level of a
residential structure that contains a garage. The majority of the Vail Town
Council explicitly decided that garage areas are deducted first and then the
basement deduction provision is applied to any remaining floor area on the
lowest level. The Vail Town Council did not want any floor areas of a residential
building to be deducted twice. The Vail Town Council acknowledged that the
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, GRFA amendments would have different
implications when applied to uphill, downhill, and flat lots.
While the audio and video of the Council's 2004 hearings no longer exist, Staff
did find in the Town archives a letter to John Schofield (former PEC member
during the Ordinance No. 14 GRFA amendment deliberations) dated November
8, 2004. This letter answers Mr. Schofield's questions about the 2004 GRFA
amendments and specifically addresses the methodology for calculating GRFA
when garages, crawlspaces, patio /decks, and employee housing units were
located on the lowest (basement) level of a building. A copy of this letter has
been attached for reference (Attachment B).
ITEM 3: THE APPEAL CONTENDS THAT THE SAME DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ARE
NOT AFFORDED TO NEIGHBORS.
The submitted appeal includes "drawings to help clarify" the appeal. The first
drawing in the appeal is an elevation of a hypothetical House A and House B:
"On the diagram titled `Uphill /Downhill GRFA Comparison', two identical houses
are drawn. One house is on the uphill side of the road and the other is on the
downhill side."
In reference to this elevation drawing, the appeal states:
"One would think that these two houses would also have identical gross
residential floor area. However, per the method of calculation used by the staff,
House `A' has 2200 s. f. of GRFA compared to 1900 s. f. in House `8' which is
explained below."
Town of Vail Page 8
The second drawing in the appeal is the floor plans for the hypothetical House A
and House B: "The diagram titled `Lowest Level Floor Plan House A' show two
floor plans for the lowest level of `House A'.
In reference to floor plan drawing, the appeal states:
"The floor plan and calculations on the left show how the staff determines the
GRFA exclusions when a garage is located at the basement level of a structure.
Simply stated, they do not allow the basement exclusion for the garage floor area
although it is set back into the hillside. The floor plan and calculations on the
right side of the drawing indicate how the ordinance outlines the garage and
basement exclusions. The difference between the two methods in this case is
300 square feet of GRFA. "
The appeal states:
"Furthermore, in the case of the identical houses `A' and 'B', House `A' is not
afforded the same development rights as their neighbor House `8' because of
this discrepancy between the ordinance and the staff's application of it."
ITEM 3: BY THEIR VERY NATURE ZONING REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE
EQUITABLE, AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR HAVING A VARIANCE PROCESS
IN THE TOWN CODE. THE TOWN COUNCIL TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE
DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF THE GRFA REGULATIONS DURING THEIR
DELIBERATIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 2004.
STAFF HAS CONSISTENTLY APPLIED THE SAME INTERPRETATION OF THE
TOWN CODE SINCE THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 2004.
UNTIL THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT INDICATING THAT HOMES IN VAIL ARE TOO SMALL OR THAT THE
BASEMENT DEDUCTION CALCULATIONS ARE TOO RESTRICTIVE.
The appeal includes a hypothetical example of "identical" Houses `A' and `B'.
First, Houses `A' and `B' are not identical. House `A' is located on an uphill lot
and has a garage on the first floor, while House `B' is located on a downhill lot
and has a garage on the third floor.
The example in the appeal fails to illustrate hypothetical House `C' which is
"identical" to Houses `A' and `B', but is built on a flat lot with a garage on the first
floor. House `C' receives zero basement deduction. The appeal states that "One
would think that these two houses would also have identical gross residential
floor area'; however, House `C' is calculated as 2,400 sq. ft. of GRFA. House `C'
counts as 200 sq. ft. more than the uphill House `A' and 500 sq. ft. more than the
downhill House `B'. A re- interpretation of the basement deduction methodology
will not change this "discrepancy ".
Town of Vail Page 9
The issue of equity and fairness was discussed at a great length during the
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, deliberations. The primary reason the 250
Ordinance and Interior Conversion additional GRFA policies were repealed in
some residential zone districts was because these policies are inequitable.
These policies allow houses to be different sizes, even when those houses are
located on the same sized lot in the same zone district (page 7, July 20, 2004
Town Council memorandum).
The Town Council recognized that the Ordinance No. 14 GRFA amendments
would have different impacts to different properties. The GRFA amendments
may have a negative affect on existing buildings with small basements and large
areas of vaulted ceilings, but be beneficial to existing buildings with large
basements and no vaulted ceiling areas. The Town Council recognized that new
homes would be designed differently than an existing house to take advantage of
the new deductions established by Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004.
The Town Council also considered how the GRFA amendments of Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 2004, would have different effects on up -hill, down -hill, and flat
lots. The Town Council debated a variety of basement deduction options
including an "all or nothing" approach of defining what is or isn't a basement and
a proposal to allow the basement deduction on multiple levels of a structure to
address the differences created by up -hill, down -hill, and flat lots. The majority of
the Town Council ultimately chose to allow the basement deduction only on the
lowest level of the structure. (page 7, July 6, 2004 memorandum and page 2,
July 20, 2004 memorandum)
After the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, Staff clarified the
interpretation of Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Vail Town
Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on the lowest level
of a structure that contains a garage. In the Town archives is a letter to John
Schofield (former PEC member during the Ordinance No. 14 GRFA amendment
deliberations) dated November 8, 2004. This letter answers Mr. Schofield's
questions about the 2004 GRFA amendments and specifically addresses the
methodology for calculating GRFA when garages, crawlspaces, patio /decks, and
employee housing units were located on the lowest (basement) level of a
building. A copy of this letter has been attached for reference (Attachment B).
Since the July 20, 2004 adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, Staff has
consistently implemented the GRFA calculation methodology described in this
memorandum. Staff has examined the Town's archives and determined that 413
Addition design review applications and 144 New Construction design review
applications were reviewed by the Town Staff between July 20, 2004 and June 1,
2011.
Of those applications, 106 New Construction applications and 354 Addition
applications affected residential development in zone districts where the
basement deduction is applicable. Staff also found 21 Change to Approved
Town of Vail Page 10
Plans design review applications that were submitted between July 2004 and
January 2005. Each of these applications was specifically submitted to take
advantage of the GRFA changes adopted with Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004.
Over the course of the last seven years, the GRFA calculation methodology
described in this memorandum has been applicable to no less than 480 design
review applications for residential construction.
To illustrate this point, Staff has attached examples of GRFA calculations for
residential construction on up -hill lots where a garage was located on the lowest
level of the building. Two of these projects were submitted in the fall of 2004,
shortly after the adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004.
Attached for reference are the GRFA calculations for 1397 Vail Valley Drive
dated August 2004 prepared by Custom Mountain Architects, 971 Spraddle
Creek Road dated September 2004, prepared by Zehren and Associates, and
366 Forest Road dated March 2008, prepared by Peel /Langenwalter Architects
(Attachment C).
In each of these examples, the architects applied the garage deduction to the
first floor garage area and then applied the basement deduction to the remaining
portions of that lower level of the building. The garages on these lowest levels of
these homes were not deducted multiple times, and the GRFA calculations for
the lowest level did not result in a negative number.
Until the filing of this appeal, Staff has not received any public comment
indicating that homes in Vail are too small or that the basement deduction GRFA
calculations are too restrictive.
VIII. BACKGROUND
GRFA is a zoning control tool that regulates the density and intensity of residential land
uses. GRFA also controls building bulk and mass when used in conjunction with other
zoning tools such as setback, height, site coverage, and landscaping requirements.
GRFA is the square footage measurement of the total floor area within a residential
building. Each zone district in Vail that allows residential land uses has a prescribed
GRFA square footage limit. All "horizontal areas" (i.e. floors) of a residential building
are counted toward this maximum allowable square footage, with the exception of
certain "deductions ".
IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN CODE
TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS
Chapter 12 -2: Definitions
Town of Vail Page 11
Administrator.- The administrator of the Department of Community Development or
his /her designee.
Chapter 12 -3: Administration and Enforcement (in part)
Section 12 -3 -3. Appeal (in part)
A. Administrative Actions. Any decision, determination or interpretation by any town
administrative official with respect to the provisions of this title and the standards and
procedures hereinafter set forth shall become final at the next planning and
environmental commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next
design review board meeting) following the administrator's decision, unless the decision
is called up and modified by the board or commission.
B. Appeal of Administrative Actions.,
1. Authority: The planning and environmental commission shall have the authority to
hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any town
administrative official with respect to the provisions of this title and the standards and
procedures hereinafter set forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or
interpretation by any town administrative official with regard to a design guideline shall
be heard by the design review board.
2. Initiation. An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any
aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination or
interpretation by any administrator with respect to this title. "Aggrieved or adversely
affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest
protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in
common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the
general interest in community good shared by all persons. The administrator shall
determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant objects to the administrator's
determination of standing, the planning and environmental commission (or the design
review board in the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing
evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. If the
planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of
design guidelines) determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an
appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the original action or determination stands.
3. Procedures. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the administrator or with the
department of community development rendering the decision, determination or
interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision becoming final. If the last
day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a town observed holiday, the last
day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The administrator's
decision shall become final at the next planning and environmental commission meeting
(or in the case of design related decision, the next design review board meeting)
following the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by
the board or commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and
addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant,
property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a
Town of Vail Page 12
condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent
or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and
articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the town. The filing of such
notice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed, to
forward to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in
the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all
records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the
appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a
condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of
directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the
hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the planning and
environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines)
on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The planning
and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design
guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain
information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional
forty (40) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an
administrator.
4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity
and any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed unless the administrator
rendering such decision, determination or interpretation certifies in writing to the
planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of
design guidelines) and the appellant that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or
property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further permit activity and any
proceedings. The commission (or board) shall review such certification and grant or
deny a stay of the proceedings. Such determination shall be made at the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the planning and environmental commission (or the design review
board in the case of design guidelines).
5. Findings. The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in
the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based
directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support
conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title
have or have not been met.
Chapter 12 -15: Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
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.
12 -15 -3. Definition, Calculation, and Exclusion (in part)
Town of Vail Page 13
A. Within The Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family
Residential (R), And Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Districts.
1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined. For residential uses, the total square footage
of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the
sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall
include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts,
fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and
other similar areas. Garages, attics, vaulted or open to below spaces, basements, crawl
spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as
floor area, except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be
deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
a. 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.
(1) Enclosed Garage Area. Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred
(300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2)
vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this
title.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis"
and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular
parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular
r-ISM &S11
Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a
garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the
garage area may be included in the garage area deduction.
Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be
included in the garage area deduction.
(2) Attic Areas With A Ceiling Height Of Five Feet Or Less. Attic areas with
a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the topside of
the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural
members of the roof directly above.
(3) Attic Areas With Trusses. Attic areas created by construction of a roof
with structural truss type members, provided the trusses are spaced no
greater than thirty inches (30') apart.
(4) Attic Areas With Nontruss System. Attic areas created by construction
of a roof structure utilizing a nontruss system, with spaces greater than
five feet (5) in height, if all of the following criteria are met.
Town of Vail Page 14
(A) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area
within the same building level; and
(B) The area shall have only the minimum access required by the
building code from the level below; and
(C) 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 shall not be improved with
decking, and
(D) It must be demonstrated by the architect that a "truss type" or
similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the
definition of floor area, and
(E) It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar tie) be
utilized when rafters are used for the roof system. In an unusual
situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is used, the staff
will review the space for compliance with this policy.
(5) Crawl Spaces. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of
ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside
of structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above.
Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation'; hazard mitigation, or
other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of
five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of
the administrator.
(6) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of
exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade,
whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal
area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The
percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole
percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured
from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above. For the
purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be
considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls.
(7) Vaulted Spaces. Interior vaulted spaces and areas "open to below"
with a floor to ceiling height less than sixteen feet (16), as measured from
the finished floor to the underside of the structural members of the
floor /ceiling assembly above.
(8) Roofed Or Covered Decks, Etc.. Roofed or covered decks, porches,
terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3)
Town of Vail Page 15
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent
(25 %) of the linear 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 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.
2. Additional Calculation Provisions.
a. Common Interior Party Walls. Where more than one dwelling unit exists within
a single structure, GRFA shall be measured for each dwelling unit from the
center of common interior party walls to the outside face of the sheathing of the
exterior walls.
b. Greenhouse Windows. Greenhouse windows (self - supporting windows) shall
not be counted as GRFA. "Greenhouse windows" are defined according to the
following criteria.
(1) Distance Above Inside Floor Level. In order for a window to be
considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of thirty six inches
(36') must be provided between the bottom of the window and the floor
surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface
shall not include steps necessary to meet building code egress
requirements.) The thirty six inch (36') minimum 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.
(2) Projection. No greenhouse window 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.
(3) Construction Characteristics. All greenhouse windows shall be self -
supporting and shall not require special framing or construction methods
for support, with the exception that brackets below the window may be
allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a forty five degree
(450) angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided
the overhang is limited to four inches (4') beyond the window plane.
(4) 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 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
Town of Vail Page 16
(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 approximately forty four (44) square feet.
(5) Quantity: Up to two (2) greenhouse 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.
(6) Site Coverage. Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage.
c. Vaulted Spaces. Any interior space with a floor to ceiling height of sixteen feet
(16) or greater, as measured from the finished floor to the underside of the
structural members of the floor /ceiling assembly above, shall be calculated as
GRFA on two (2) levels of a structure.
X. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission upholds the administrator's interpretation of Chapter 12 -15,
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of
gross residential floor area on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission makes the following findings of fact:
'Based upon a review of the Staff's June 13, 2011 memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the evidence and testimony presented, the
Planning and Environmental Commission finds.
• During their deliberations of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, the Vail Town
Council took into account that the effects of the GRFA regulations are
different for up -hill, down -hill, and flat lots.
• During their deliberations of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, the Vail Town
Council identified the purpose of the basement deduction as to "increase the
amount of allowable GRFA in all residential zone districts, with the intent that
the increase be located below -grade and not dramatically increase the above -
grade building bulk and mass"
• During its deliberations of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, the Vail Town
Council adopted a policy that when calculating GRFA for a residential building
with a garage on the lowest level, the floor area of a garage is deducted from
the total GRFA square footage utilizing the "enclosed garage area" deduction
and that same floor area in not then deducted a second time from total GRFA
square footage utilizing the "basement" deduction provision.
• During its deliberations of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, the Vail Town
Council adopted a policy that floor areas on the lowest level of a structure are
Town of Vail Page 17
not deducted from the from the calculation of GRFA square footage multiple
times.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, established a basement deduction from
the GRFA calculations for residential structures located within the Hillside
Residential, Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two -
Family Primary/Secondary Residential Districts.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, was adopted on second reading by the
Vail Town Council on July 20, 2004.
Since the July 20, 2004 adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, Town
Staff has interpreted the Vail Town Code such that when calculating GRFA
for a residential building with a garage on the lowest level, the garage is first
deducted from the total floor area of that level and then the basement
deduction is only applied to any remaining floor area of the lowest level. Floor
areas on the lowest level of a residential structure are not deducted multiple
times.
Since the July 20, 2004 adoption of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, Staff's
interpretation of the Vail Town Code has been consistently applied to no less
than 480 residential design review applications.
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission makes the following conclusions:
'Based upon a review of the Staff's June 13, 2011, memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony presented, and the
Commission's finding of facts, the Planning and Environmental Commission
concludes.
The administrator has properly interpreted Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA), Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross
residential floor area on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. "
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission makes the following motion:
'Based upon a review of the Staff's June 13, 2011 memorandum to the Planning
and Environmental Commission, the evidence and testimony presented, and the
finding of facts, the Planning and Environmental Commission upholds the
administrator's interpretation of Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA), Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area
on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to uphold the
administrator's interpretation of Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA),
Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on the lowest
level of a structure that contains a garage; but feels the Vail Town Code should be
Town of Vail Page 18
amended to clarify the policy; Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental
Commission forwards a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for amendments
to the Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Vail Town Code.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission not agree with the adopted
policies and methodologies related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on
the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage; Staff recommends the Planning
and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council for amendments to the Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA),
Vail Town Code, rather than changing the adopted policies of Ordinance No. 14, Series
of 2004, through re- interpretation.
XI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Appeal
B. GRFA Letter dated November 8, 2004
Town of Vail Page 19
Attachment A
Appeal of Planning Staff Application of GRFA Exclusions Page 2 of 5
Peel/La ngenwa[ter Architects
April 20, 2011
Nature of the Appeal
This appeal concerns the difference between the plain written language of the GRFA
ordinance and the method by which the planning staff applies the ordinance. Specifically, the
ordinance states that all floor area on all levels shall be calculated and then the listed
exclusions are to be deducted from that total-
The list of eight GRFA exclusions includes enclosed garage area as well as basements.
These are listed as two separate exclusions to be deducted from the GRFA calculations.
However, the staff does not allow the basement deduction for a garage located on the lowest
level of a structure. In this type of construction they exclude the garage area from the
basement deduction and apply it only to what they term GRFA or livable area.'
Please see the attached drawings to help clarify. On the diagram titled "Uphill /Downhill
GRFA Comparison ", two identical houses are drawn. One house is on the uphill side of the
road and the other is on the downhill side. Each house consists of three 1000 square feet
stories for a total of 3000 square feet of GRFA prior to exclusions. Each house also has a
600 square foot double garage and 50% of the lowest level walls are unexposed. One would
think that these two houses would also have identical gross residential floor area. However,
per the method of calculation used by the staff, House 'A' has 2200 s.f. of GRFA compared
to 1900 s.f. in House 'B' which is explained below.
The diagram titled "Lowest Level Floor Plan House 'A "' shows two floor plans for the lowest
level of House 'A'. The floor plan and calculations on the left show how the staff determines
the GRFA exclusions when a garage is located at the basement level of a structure. Simply
stated, they do not allow the basement exclusion for the garage floor area although it is set
back ir+o the hillside. The floor plan and calculations an the ride side of the drawing indicate
haw the ordinance outlines garage and basement exclusions. The difference between the
two methods in this case is 300 square feet of GRFA.
The planning staff's reasoning for disallowing the basement exclusion for garage area is that
a floor cannot have more exclusions than it has floor area. However, the ordinance clearly
addresses what may or may not be included in figuring both enclosed garage area and
basements but there is no discussion that excludes garage area from the basement
deduction. Furthermore, in the case of the identical houses 'A' and 'B', House 'A' is not
afforded the same development rights as their neighbor House 'B' because of this
discrepancy between the ordinance and the staff's application of it.
Related Section of the Code
Following is the section of the code that applies to this appeal. Words that specifically apply
to the appeal are shown in bold print.
Title 12 - ZONING REGULATIONS,
Chapter 15 - GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA),
Town of Vail Page 20
Appeal of Planning Staff Application of GRFA Exclusions Page 3 of 5
Peel /Langenwalter Architects
April 20, 2011
12 -15 -3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS:
A. Within The Hillside Residential (HR), Single- Family Residential (SFR), Two - Family
Residential (R), And Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Districts:
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage
of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of
the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area
shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts,
fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other
similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl
spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as
floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
a. 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.
(1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300)
square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle
parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a 'per space basis" and
shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space
shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and
which are twenty five percent (25 %) or more open to the garage area may be
included in the garage area deduction.
interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be
included in the garage area deduction.
(6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior
wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is
more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest
level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction
calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior
wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to
the underside of the structural floor members of the floor /ceiling assembly above.
For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall
not be considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls.
"Also note that when figuring the basement exclusion, the staff does include the walls of the garage
area. Since garage doors are always 100% exposed, this inclusion of the garage walls tends to
increase the percentage of exposed walls thus decreasing the percentage of unexposed wall area
that can be applied toward the area they allow for the basement exclusion.
Town of Vail Page 21
u)
O o
X LL
uj
LL
O
0
m
V
CL
a
4
U) N
6? �
C u
'C d
C �
W
LL
G mo
Ol N
� J N
CL N
aCL Q
III
01�
V1
X
LL_ AL
IL
l
z
N�)
Town of Vail Page 22
fIb1I
x
�X
Town of Vail Page 22
N.
P
a)
cz
m
Cl.
N
C
O
N
7
U
x
W
Q
tl
O
C
O
RY
u
CL
C.
V
cn U
C p)
�m
� C �
a�Q
m(N
�m�
W _j N
C Qy —
CL Q [L 4
OR
r
�f.
4
\IN
r•:1
1
—j—_I
NM
>L
1L
V,
LIL
�4 DL
1
Q
Y"j
IL
r
�f.
4
\IN
r•:1
1
—j—_I
NM
>L
1L
V,
�J 1
Town of Vail Page 23
CY
Q
Y"j
by
�1
llL
D
Y1
-j
�
�
li
w4
�J 1
Town of Vail Page 23
CY
by
e
1
li
w4
z
u�
�J 1
Town of Vail Page 23
Attachment B
TUWN OVATIJ PILE COPY
i.)rl:rtrf•i!r'vtf Ui �,f 11; 77iN 1J1
1 Road
1171 (: it 1'!;•1 !i: rJ(e'
l;rr. +. 51657
9.0- i'Y -!I:iN
i A V 9: -0- i 'Si 1•i 52
ivru,c vai�gai'.c'om
November 8, 2004
John Schofield
1448 Vail Valley drive
Vail, CO 81557
RE: GRFA
Dear John,
Thank you for your letter dated October 15, 2004, concerning the Town of Vail's recent GRFA
text amendments. Your letter expressed the fallowing four points:
1. When a garage is the lowest level of a structure will the code allow a GRFA
deduction for the garage plus the basement?. _
2. When a garage is the lowest level of a structure, which also has other GRFA at
a higher level, which also meets the definition of basement, will both be allowed
as deductions to total GRFA? ...
3. ... (for two- family and primary- secondary structures with different floor
elevations) Both units could possibly have GRFA which meets with the intent of
"basement", but a strict and literal interpretation would only allow "the lowest
level of a structure" to qualify for a GRFA deduction even though the lowest
levels of each side of a two - family or primary- secondary structure could meet the
intent of "basement" and should be allowed the GRFA deduction.
4. This same situation will occur with `basements' with steps in the lowest level
floor. (These steps are often one or two risers).
During its deliberation of the GRFA amendments, the Town Council was very specific in the
implementation of the GRFA amendments in regard to comments #1 and #2. When calculating
the GRFA for the lowest level of a structure, the total floor area of that level is calculated first.
Then deductions are subtracted from this total floor area for qualifying crawlspaces (less than
five -foot head height, access no larger than twelve sq. ft.), garages (up to 300 sq.ft. per parking
spaces, max of two spaces), employee housing units, and other deductions such as common
areas (multiple - family districts only), etc. Once these deductions are subtracted from the total
floor area, the basement percentage deduction is applied to the remaining floor area.
For example, a single - family house with a 1,200 sq.ft. lowest level, 50% below- grade, including
a two -car garage and modest crawlspace shall be calculated as follows:
"Se+ring A :Vcu Standard Fur (:ntninrrrru) Development l.), parirnew Servirrs"
%j RFCtnr:ctnrArrrr
Town of Vail Page 24
OVAIUL'
T0WN
I)eparlinew 01'Corerrmuniry Orveloprueut
'? . ooh frow,,w Ito d
VaL Loioyado 81015%
91-10-4,11V-2138
&LV ! 70- 4:'9 -,NV
www, ra i�QOn cra nr
Actual floor area lowest level
Garage deduction
Crawlspace deduction
Sub -total GRFA calculation
Basement deduction
Final GRFA calculation
1,200 sq. ft.
-600 sq. ft.
-100 sq.ft.
500 sq. ft.
-250 sq.ft. (50% of 500
250 sq.ft.
With this GRFA calculation methodology, a garage Is not counted as both a 'garage deduction"
and a "basement deduction ". In this example, the 600 sq.ft. garage is equal to 0 sq.ft. of GRFA
by applying the "garage deduction ". This same 600 sq.ft. space does not count as -900 GRFA
sq -ft -, by applying both a "garage deduction" and "basement deduction" to the same area.
During its deliberation of the GRFA amendments, the Council was adamant that the "basement
deduction" only applies to the lowest level of a structure. If the lowest level of a structure only
includes a garage, and that garage is equivalent to 0 sq.ft. of GRFA by applying the "garage
deduction ", then no other GRFA deductions are granted to that level. Any level above the
garage in this scenario is not the lowest level of the structure, and therefore not eligible for a
"basement deduction ".
In response to your #3 and #4 comments, Staff has recognized that minor differences may
occur between the lowest level finished floor elevations of two or more dwelling units within a
single structure. Staff has also recognized that minor finished floor elevation differences may
occur within the lowest level of a single dwelling unit (example: split -level basement layouts).
Therefore, Staff has determined that minor finished floor elevation differences between dwelling
units or within a single unit do not inherently disqualify a space for eligibility for the "basement
deduction ". This question has arisen on several recent projects; however, in each situation it
was mutually agreed by Staff and the applicants which floor areas are truly on the lowest level
and which areas are not on the lowest level of the structure. In these scenarios, the finished
floor elevation differences have only ranged from inches to two or three feet. Staff has also
examined the ceiling elevations of these areas when determining the lowest level of a structure.
Staff has considered areas with minor finished floor elevations differences, but consistent ceiling
elevations (examples.- split level rooms or rooms with adjacent crawlspaces) to be on the same
level of a structure.
The Staff has recognized since the beginning of the GRFA amendment review process that
once an ordinance was adopted, future interpretations and amendments to that ordinance would
be necessary. Therefore, as questions or issues related to the Town's GRFA regulations arise,
the Staff will compose formal interpretations or possible text amendments for review by the
Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council to clarify these regulations-
"5'ertiui iA New Staudsrd For Condmi ity Deve/opwnrt Departmem- 5'crvkty
i NE YUED PAPf'F
Town of Vail Page 25
TOWN OF VE
Sm re re I y,
Bill Gibson, AICP
Town of Vail
"Settinz A New Standard For Communiq Development Departmens Services"
■ PAPER
Town of Vail Page 26
TOWN OAIL
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Pierce
Michael Kurz
Luke Cartin
Henry Pratt
Pam Hopkins
John Rediker
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 25, 2011
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS ABSENT
Tyler Schneidman
SITE VISITS
1. Briar Patch — 1446 Buffehr Creek Road; 1386, 1388 and 1390 Briar Patch Lane; 1374 and 1378
Sandstone Drive
2. Vail Townhouse Condominiums, Vail Row Houses, Texas Townhomes, Vail Trails East and
West
20 minutes
A request for the review of a preliminary plan and a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the existing Parcels A through F and
Units 1 through 3 of the Residences at Briar Patch, and the creation of Parcels G and H of the
Residences at Briar Patch for the purposes of preserving open space and mitigating high
severity rockfall hazards, located at 1446 Buffehr Creek Road; 1386, 1388, and 1390 Briar Patch
Lane; 1374 and 1378 Sandstone Drive /Lots G2, G5, and G6, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2
(Residences at Briar Patch), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110034)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -1 (Pierce recused)
Bill Pierce recused himself due to professional conflict.
Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum.
Henry Pratt asked how the Town can make a recommendation since the Town is the applicant.
Wendy St. Charles, representative of the Briar Patch Association, stated that the associate is in
agreement with the Town's application.
Commissioner Rediker asked if the Town has worked out negotiations for the land purchase.
Wendy St. Charles responded that most negotiations were completed, but the sale was not
complete.
Commissioner Rediker asked if the land sale was contingent upon the approval of new parcels
and building envelopes.
Bill Gibson responded that the new envelopes were not related to the land purchase.
Page 1
Commissioner Rediker asked if Town Staff determined it was appropriate for a change in
building envelopes to be included with the creation of the new parcel.
Bill Gibson responded that the creation of the new parcels and building envelope changes was
appropriate to be reviewed together as they could be approved independently of each other
should the Commission feel that one was appropriate and the other was not.
Wendy St. Charles added that the HOA want to amend the parcels and building envelopes prior
to the Town seeking to purchase Tract G.
Commissioner Rediker asked if the Town Attorney has reviewed whose obligation it is to mitigate
hazards. He asked whose responsibility and liability it is for the rockfall hazard today and into the
future.
Bill Gibson responded he was unsure if the Town Attorney had reviewed that matter.
Commissioner Cartin asked what is to the west of the proposed Parcel G.
Bill Gibson responded it is a Town of Vail owned open space parcel.
Commissioner Cartin asked about the Timber Ridge project hazard mitigation and whether the
land purchase means the Town has chosen to mitigate with netting.
Warren Campbell responded that any mitigation plans would be reviewed by the Commission at
a future hearing as was required by a condition placed on the previous approval.
Commissioner Cartin added that any addition and construction that is near the ridgeline and
visible from below is not favorable.
Wendy St. Charles stated that the HOA worked with the Town to ensure no additional ridgeline
development.
Commissioner Cartin asked about when there is a hazard, who is responsible for mitigation.
Bill Gibson explained the Town Code process and procedures required for hazard mitigation.
The Town does not typically mitigate hazards on private property.
Commissioner Kurz asked why the hazard has not already been mitigated.
Gibson responded that there is no Town Code requirement that the HOA mitigate a hazard
affecting a neighboring property.
Commissioner Pratt asked what rules the town has to administer and regulate envelopes.
Wendy St. Charles stated that the restrictions are on the plat.
Commissioner Rediker stated he understands the goals of the homeowners. He stated the
Town's portion of the deal is not a good deal. The parcel is being purchased with taxpayer
money to mitigate issues that are the responsibility of the current owners.
Commissioner Pratt stated that he agrees with Commissioner Rediker. Commissioners Cartin
and Hopkins agreed with these statements.
Page 2
George Ruther stated that the Vail Town Council and legal Staff have discussed this issue at
length and feel this is an appropriate purchase for the Town.
Commissioner Cartin stated that the Commissioners should see the mitigation options for Timber
Ridge. He would also like more legal input at a future hearing regarding mitigation liability.
George Ruther stated that the Vail Town Council decided to acquire this property in order to
have control of the property and determine mitigation versus dealing with another landowner. He
stated that it could be a less expensive option than other mitigation methods.
Commissioner Pratt stated that this is not a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, but rather
a final review and final decision.
20 minutes
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for amendments to the Town of Vail
Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to
allow for a land use category change from Medium Density Residential to Open Space; and a
request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment,
pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from
Residential Cluster District to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 1448 Buffehr Creek
Road /Lot G, Residences at Briar Patch Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC110042)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -1 -0 ( Rediker opposed)
Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum
Commissioner Rediker asked why the applicant is the Town of Vail, when the property is not
currently in their ownership.
Bill Gibson stated that the Town can impose zoning on any property owner. He further explained
that the plat was noticed prior to the rezoning and with the time spent on the plat the application
for the major subdivision "caught -up" with the rezoning application. The intent of the proposed
condition was to make any recommendation forwarded by the Commission contingent upon the
recording of the related plat.
Wendy St. Charles, representative of the Residences at Briar Patch HOA, stated that the
contract stipulates rezoning and that she felt it was appropriate for the Commission to consider
the rezoning at this time.
Commissioner Pratt clarified that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the Vail
Town Council, who will determine if the zoning is appropriate for the property.
45 minutes
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments
to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment,
Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and
setting forth details in regard thereto; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town
Council on proposed amendments to Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -
Area ( #6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment,
Page 3
Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse
(VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110040, PEC110041)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to August 22, 2011
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He clarified the intent of the new
zone district and that today's hearing was a work session. Mr. Gibson covered several elements
of the application that had changed since the Commission had last seen the application.
Dominic Mauriello, representing Chris Galvin, owner in the Vail Rowhouses, gave a power point
presentation highlighting several suggestions his client has regarding Staff's proposed Vail
Village Townhouse District. The presentation included the history of the zoning for the
properties, history of the Commission actions on the previous SDD applications and zone district
establishment. The presentation covered the architectural standards and guidelines proposed
with in the Vail Village Master Plan amendments. The applicant suggested changes to the
building step backs, the possible elimination of GRFA and reliance on Design Guidelines, and if
that is not palatable why a 1.5 GRFA ratio is appropriate. An argument was made that the bulk
and mass created by a 1.5 GRFA ratio was not visually distinguishable from 1.35 or 1.25 GRFA
ratios.
Junn Dunn, attorney representing Dolph Bridgewater, owner of Vail Row House Unit 11, asked
Bill Gibson to clarify that the previous Ordinance that was approved upon first reading on was no
longer proceeding forward and had been withdrawn. The application before the Commission
was a new consideration of this application.
Dolph Bridgewater, owner of Unit 11 in the Vail Row House, spoke to the background on his
involvement in the previous applications. He spoke to his notification with regard to the latest
application and inability to prepare a response in time for the packets. He has provided a written
response to the application for the hearing today. He covered the history of how the application
grew from addressing several equity issues to additional development potential. In his opinion
this application represents bad public policy. Forcing redevelopment for a non - public goal he
does not understand. There is not a stated public goal in conjunction with the application.
People visit Vail because of an aesthetic and policy is needed to protect the "historic district"
which he believes his property is included within.
Commissioner Rediker encouraged Mr. Bridgewater to prepare a statement for the next public
hearing. He further questioned if the Town has heard from any other members of these projects
regarding their support or lack of support for the application. He felt that it would be appropriate
to provide notice to all the properties being considered for inclusion in a new Vail Village
Townhome District.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, wanted to make it clear that the
Board of his association was not taking an official stance on this proposal. He has been
speaking to multiple methods of addressing the issues and hand in this application. He
highlighted a generational division between older individuals who are reluctant to change and the
younger generation seeking a different vision. He stated that we need to think through Vail
Village and how we want to see it change and remain intact for future generations, and leaving it
intact does not mean leaving it the same.
Henry Pratt had to depart at 4:00 pm and was not present for the vote upon the items
conclusion.
Page 4
Commissioner Hopkins stated her familiarity with several of the projects under consideration for
this new zone district. Many of the projects are condominium ownership and she believe that
this needs to be addressed. She believes the zone district should have a basis in a historic vein
verse a townhouse district. She is concerned about the two story step back at 20 feet creating an
undesirable outcome. She does not believe that the fagade articulation will be enough. She
does not like the first come first served approached to the front fagade. She is also concerned
about six story elevation on the rear of the buildings.
Commissioner Cartin is complex and not all properties will achieve the same amount of
deduction. These properties are townhouse style, not true townhouse development. Are we
mashing elements together which will create future headaches. He does not support reducing
the step back to 5 -7 feet on the upper floor. These projects are a unique to what is surrounding
them from the Village core to Manor Vail. He recommended cleaning up parking easements and
public road adjacent to the tennis courts. He is cautious about allowing the buildings to get to
much larger.
Commissioner Pierce stated that it feels like a project in search of zoning. He will be looking at
heights below 43 feet. He suggested that 38 feet is about as high as the projects should get.
The result is going to need to be a balance between GRFA, height, setbacks, site coverage, etc.
Made a comment about the inset deck and what the Code says about enclosed are being
counted towards GRFA and proper design.
Commissioner Rediker stated that many of his concerns had been identified by other
commissioners. He is not opposed to some additional height and GRFA to accompany
redevelopment. He does not believe it is possible to achieve 6 stories at the rear, but the
concern is his as well. He would like to understand how the GRFA ratios has been bouncing
around over all the hearings. He does not understand why landscaping area is being reduced to
20% from 30 %. He did not understand how a difference in 1.25 and 1.5 GRFA was beneficial
beyond additional value to the lots.
Commisisoner Kurz identified concerns about the uniformity in the design guidelines creating too
much uniformity and that the character of the neighborhood is the difference. He believes the
proposal has gone past the scope of the original challenge. He still believes that 1.35 ratio is
appropriate and reached after great deliberation.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that height is a concern.
Jim Lamont mentioned that a future conveyance Chalet Road may need to be addressed by the
Town for as part of this application and the overall Village master plan n i ng/streetscape process.
20 minutes
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for corrections to
Section 12 -6F -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow communications antennas and
appurtenant equipment as a conditional use in the Low Density Multiple Family Districts; and for
prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
for corrections to Section 12 -6E -2, Permitted Uses; Section 12 -6F -2, Permitted Uses; Section
12 -6G -2, Permitted Uses; and Section 12 -13 -4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU)
Type, Vail Town Code, to allow Type III Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as a permitted use in
the Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF), and Medium Density Multiple
Family (MDMF) Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110023)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Page 5
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Recommendation of Approval
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
Rachel Friede gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners expressed their support for the application.
5 minutes
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments
to Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, related to the calculation of gross residential floor area on the
lowest level of a structure that contains a garage in the Hillside Residential, Single - Family
Residential, Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Districts,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110043)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Table to August 8, 2011
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
5 minutes
6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town
Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will
implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC090028)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Table to September 26, 2011
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
5 minutes
7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations
amendments, pursuant to Section 11 -3 -3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to Sections 11 -7 -15, Public Parking and Loading Signs for Private Property, Vail Town Code,
and 11 -7 -16, Informational and Directional Sign for Public Parking on Private Property, Vail Town
Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110021)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Table to August 22, 2011
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
5 minutes
8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the Special Events Plans for the
2011 US Pro Cycling Challenge, to allow for temporary exemptions from Title 10, Building
Codes, Title 11, Sign Regulations, Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110044)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Withdrawn
9. Approval of July 11, 2011 minutes
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 5 -0 -0
Page 6
10. Information Update
11. Adjournment
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. 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 information.
Community Development Department
Published July 22, 2011, in the Vail Daily.
Page 7
Ad Name: 6861200A
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM
Your account 1022233
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO }
}SS.
COUNTY OF EAGLE }
I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified
representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper
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 and
that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice
and advertisement as requested.
The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
Rule provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every
number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said
notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8/5/2011 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/5/2011 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
08/17/2011.
General Manager /Publisher /Editor
Vail Daily
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for
the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 08/17/2011.
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires: November 1, 2011
PUBLIC NOTICE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION
August 8, 2011
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PUBLIC WELCOME
75 . Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
60 minutes
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail
Town Council on prescribed regulation amend-
ments to Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor
Area, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, related to the calcu-
lation of gross residential floor area on the lowest
level of a structure that contains a garage in the
Hillside Residential, Single - Family Residential,
Two - Family Residential, and Two - Family
Primary /Secondary Residential Districts, and set-
ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110043)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION:
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 minutes
2. A request for the review of a variance, V
pursuant to Section 14 -1 -5, Variances, ail Town
Code, from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and
Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installa-
tion of solar panels extending higher than one
foot above the building ridgeline, located at 4918
Meadow Drive, Unit A /Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn
Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC100046)
Applicant: Warren Dean,
represented by Capitol Solar Energy
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Table to August 22, 2011
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5 minutes
3. A request for review of a major exterior
alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major
Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack
Building), located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2 /1-ot
D, Block 5, Vail Village Filing , and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC110045)
Applicant: Margo Mullally,
represented by Mark Donaldson
Planner: Rachel Dimond
ACTION: Table To August 22, 2011
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
4. Approval of July 25, 2011 minutes
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
5. Information Update
6. Adjournment
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
The applications and information about the
proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage
Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site visits that precede the
public hearing in the Town of Vail Community
Development Department. 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
information.
Community Development Department
Published August 5, 2011, in the Vail Daily [6861200]
Ad Name: 6797229A
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM
Your account 3
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO }
}SS.
COUNTY OF EAGLE }
I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified
representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper
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 and
that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice
and advertisement as requested.
The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
Rule provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every
number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said
notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/22/2011 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/22/2011 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
07/25/2011.
General Manager /Publisher /Editor
Vail Daily
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for
the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 07/25/2011.
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires: November 1, 2011
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, Vail Town Code, on August 8, 2011, at
1 :00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for review of a major exterior alteration,
pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alter-
ations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow
for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack Building), lo-
cated at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2 /1-ot D, Block 5,
Vail Village Filing , and setting forth details in re-
gard thereto. (PEC110045)
Applicant: Margo Mullally, represented by Mark
Donaldson
Planner: Rachel Dimond
The applications and information about the propos-
als are available for public inspection during office
hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop-
ment 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 970 - 479 -2138 for additional informa-
tion.
Sign language interpretation is available upon re-
quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call
970 - 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im-
paired, for information.
Published July 22, 2011, in the Vail Daily.
(6797229)