Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0926 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 26, 2011 �. 1:OOpm TOWN OF VAII, ' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT 15 minutes 1. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase ll, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the exchange of the on -site employee housing unit (EHU) requirement in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code; located at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G/ Lot G, Crossview at Vail, Phase 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110051) Applicant: Craig B. Cohn and Sharon M. Puczynski Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 60 minutes 2. A request for the review of variances from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110053) Applicant: William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 45 minutes 3. 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: 60 minutes 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulation of indoor and outdoor ski storage, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110054) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 1 5 minutes 5. 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, 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: Table to October 10, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 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 October 10, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 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 October 10, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 8. 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: WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of September 12, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. Information Update 11. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 2 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 September 23, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 3 rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 2011 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the exchange of the on -site employee housing unit (EHU) requirement in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code; located at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G/ Lot G, Crossview at Vail, Phase 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110051) Applicant: Craig B. Cohn and Sharon M. Puczynski Planner: Rachel Dimond I. SUMMARY The applicants, Craig B. Cohn and Sharon M. Puczynski, are requesting review of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II, in order to remove the on -site employee housing unit requirement and subsequently transfer the deed restriction to another unit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. Attached for review is a vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's request (Attachment B), Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 (Attachment C), Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997 (Attachment D), and a draft of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011 (Attachment E). II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Craig B. Cohn and Sharon M. Puczynski, are requesting the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II. The amendments, as outlined in Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011 (see Attachment C), are summarized as follows: • Remove the provision that Residence G have an on -site employee housing unit; and • Amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to reflect the changes in GRFA calculation, which does NOT result in any increase in allowable GRFA, except for Residence G, which will absorb the EHU floor area. Should the on -site EHU requirement be removed, the applicant is requesting to transfer the deed restriction to a currently non - deed - restricted unit in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code. While the SDD language states the EHU be 534 square feet, the recorded deed restriction is for 433 square feet, as is shown on the floor plans. These regulations would require that in exchange for removing the deed restriction from the 433 square foot EHU, the proposed employee housing unit would have to be at least 866 square feet if it is located outside the commercial job core, as is to be proposed. III. BACKGROUND Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II, was established by Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, adopted on September 7, 1993. The purpose of establishing SDD No. 29 was to provide "greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property." Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997, amended the SDD to add development potential for Tract A. The SDD was erroneously labeled SDD No. 28, which was already utilized by The Christiania. As a result, the SDD number was changed, along with a few other minor changes, in Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997, which was adopted on March 25, 1997. There have been no other amendments to the SDD. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE ARTICLE A. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) DISTRICT (in part) 12 -9A -1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the Town of Vail Page 2 community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. 12 -9A -2: DEFINITIONS: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND /OR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this section), except as provided under section 12 -15 -4, "Interior Conversions ", or 12 -15 -5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) ", of this title. 12 -13 -5: EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION EXCHANGE PROGRAM: A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide occupied livable, affordable employee housing units within the Town of Vail through the establishment of an employee housing unit deed restriction exchange program. The exchange program allows the Town Council to release a deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on another dwelling unit and/ or a fee -in -lieu payment made to the Town of Vail. B. Applicability: The program established under this section applies to existing employee housing units. This shall not apply to any existing employee housing unit that is already price appreciation capped or any employee housing unit established to meet the on site employee mitigation requirements of chapter 23, "Commercial Linkage ", or chapter 24, "Inclusionary Zoning ", of this title or as part of an approved development plan. C. Definitions: For the purpose of this section: COMMERCIAL JOB CORE: Those areas located south of Interstate 70, east of the intersection of Forest Road and South Frontage Road, north of Vail Mountain, and west of the town of Vail soccer fields on Vail Valley Road, as further defined by exhibit A of this section. Exchange EHU: The existing non -price appreciation capped employee housing unit or other unit with an employee housing deed restriction that is being proposed to have the deed restriction released as part of this program. Proposed EHU: The existing dwelling unit that is being proposed to receive an employee housing deed restriction as part of this program. D. General Requirements: The Town Council may approve the removal of an employee housing deed restriction from an existing employee housing unit in exchange Town of Vail Page 3 for the placement of an employee housing deed restriction on to another dwelling unit, and /or the payment of a fee -in -lieu. 1. Exchange EHU requirements: a. The exchange EHU shall not be part of any employee housing project developed or deed - restricted (in part or in whole) by the Town of Vail. b. The exchange EHU shall not be part of any on -site employee housing mitigation required by inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage, or as part of an approved development plan. c. The property that includes the exchange EHU shall comply with the prescribed development standards (density controls including GRFA and number of units, site coverage, landscaping and parking requirements, etc.), as outlined in the applicable zone district section of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, upon exchange of the deed restrictions. 2. Proposed EHU requirements: a. The proposed EHU(s) shall be located within the Town of Vail. b. The proposed EHU(s) shall be within a homeowners association that does not preclude deed restricted units, does not have a right of first refusal, does not have right to approve the sale or the sale contract, or have any other requirements deemed to be similarly restrictive by the Administrator. c. The proposed EHU shall comply with the minimum size requirements shown in Table 13 -2. TABLE 13 -2: MINIMUM SIZE OF PROPOSED EHUs Type Of Unit Minimum Size (GRFA) Studio 438 square feet 1 bedroom 613 square feet 2 bedroom 788 square feet 3+ bedrooms 1,225 square feet d. The proposed EHU shall contain a kitchen facility or kitchenette and a bathroom. e. The property on which the proposed EHU is located shall comply with Chapter 12 -10, Off - Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code. f. The proposed EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from the proposed EHU to any dwelling unit to which it may be attached. 3. Exchange Rate for Proposed EHUs: a. If the exchange EHU(s) is within the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is also within the commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a minimum of two (2) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU. b. If the exchange EHU is within the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is outside of the commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a minimum of three (3) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU. Town of Vail Page 4 c. If the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is inside of the commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a minimum of one and one -half (1.5) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU. d. If the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core and the proposed EHU(s) is outside of the commercial job core, the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) shall be a minimum of two (2) times the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the exchange EHU. 4. No Credit Given: If the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed EHU(s) is in excess of the minimum required gross residential floor area (GRFA) as set forth in Subsection D3 above, the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall not be eligible for use as any form of future credit or for the Commercial Linkage or Inclusionary Zoning employee housing mitigation banks established by Sections 12 -23 -7 and 12 -24 -7, Vail Town Code. 5. Fee -In -Lieu: The applicant may elect to provide a fee -in -lieu payment to the Town of Vail for any portion of the required square footage not provided by a proposed EHU. The town shall only use monies collected from the fees in lieu to provide new employee housing. The applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu equal to the following formulas: Existing EHU sq. ft. x multiplier x inclusionary zoning fee = Fee -in -Lieu Payment a. If the exchange EHU was approved prior to July 22, 1994 and has a deed restriction that includes the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees...," the formula for fee -in -lieu payment is: [the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for inclusionary zoning fee -in -lieu] x 1 b. If the exchange EHU was approved after July 22, 1994 and /or does not have a deed restriction that includes the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees... ", and If the exchange EHU is outside of the commercial job core, the formula for fee -in -lieu payment is: [the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for inclusionary zoning fee -in -lieu] x 2 c. If the exchange EHU was approved after July 22, 1994 and /or does not have a deed restriction that includes the language stating "if the unit is rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees... ", and is within the commercial job core, the formula for fee -in -lieu payment is: [the square footage of the exchange EHU as recorded on the deed restriction] x [the current rate for inclusionary zoning fee -in -lieu] x 3 F. Review Process: Town of Vail Page 5 1. Submittal Requirements: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an employee housing deed restriction exchange application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the community development department. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and /or modified by the administrator and /or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed exchange. The administrator and /or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the application. 2. Review Procedures: a. Administrator Review: The administrator shall review the application for completeness and compliance with this section, and shall make a determination of completeness and compliance with this section within fourteen (14) days of application submittal. Should the administrator deem that the application is incomplete or not in compliance with this section, the administrator shall deny the application. Should the administrator deem the application is both complete and in compliance with this section, the administrator shall forward the application for review by the Vail local housing authority. b. Vail Local Housing Authority Review: The review of a proposed employee housing deed restriction exchange application shall be held by the Vail local housing authority at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the community development department staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the formal hearing before the Vail local housing authority. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Vail local housing authority shall act on the application. The authority may recommend approval of the application as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the application. The authority shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. c. Town Council Review: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the authority, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on the application, the town council shall act on the application. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the Vail local housing authority. The town council may approve, either in accordance with the recommendation of the Vail local housing authority or in modified form, or the council may deny the application. 3. Criteria and Findings: a. Criteria: Before acting on an Employee Housing Deed Restriction Exchange application, the Vail Local Housing Authority and Vail Town Council shall consider the following criteria with respect to the application: 1. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed EHU(s) to the Commercial Job Core and public transportation; and Town of Vail Page 6 2. The size of the proposed EHU(s) in relation to the minimum employee housing unit sizes established for Commercial Linkage mitigation in Section 12 -23 -3, Vail Town Code; and 3. The effect of any homeowners association dues or maintenance fees imposed upon the proposed EHU(s) on the affordability of the proposed unit for an employee; and 4. The correlation between any homeowners association fees imposed upon the proposed EHU(s) and the services and amenities provided by the homeowners association. 5. The extent to which the exchange 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 6. The extent to which the exchange presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and 7. The extent to which the exchange provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole. Town Of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan OBJECTIVES F. Increase and maintain deed - restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. It is understood there is a reduced need for personal automobiles and reduced transit costs when home and work are in close proximity to one another. Also, there may be changes in workforce demographics that result in opportunities to reduce parking associated with affordable housing in selected locations. To the extent these opportunities can be realized, without negative impacts on the overall community, they will be explored. Employee Housing Units Exchange Program The Town will conduct a review of the "dispersed housing units" that have been created under the density bonus provisions allowed by Town Code since 1982. It is estimated that 123 units were created under the existing program, typically ranging in size from 300 to 500 square feet. It is believed that many of these units are not being used to house employees as anticipated by the program. Although these units are covered by various types of deed restrictions, the requirements are not uniform and in many cases are not meeting the objective of providing long -term dispersed employee housing. The Town will evaluate the current program and will consider a "deed restriction exchange program" as a part of this overall effort. The program would likely permit, at the initiation of the landowner, the exchange of small rental units for a larger for -sale, price appreciation capped employee housing unit. Guidelines for the program will be developed. It is expected that these standards will address recommended size of units, Town of Vail Page 7 location, homeowner's fees and other aspects of the program. Such a program has been recently tried in Vail. It is believed that other dispersed employee units, not currently in use, could be leveraged into permanently restricted units by using this technique; it could represent an important element of this overall plan. The Units Exchange Program is to increase the quality and the total quantity of employee housing within the Town of Vail. Achieves Objectives B, E, F, and G. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 1460 Buffehr Creek Road Legal Description: Crossview at Vail Zone District: Residential Cluster (RC District), SDD No. 29, The Valley Phase II Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Development RC Zoning SDD No. 29/ Proposed Standard Existin Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. Tract A- 0.860 acres No change Tract B -2- 2.418 acres Total= 3.278 acres/ 142,789 sq. ft. Setbacks: -front 20 feet Per development plan No change - sides /rear 15 feet Building Height 30 feet flat Per development plan No change 33 feet sloping Dwelling Units /Acre 6 DU/ buildable 9 DU 9 DU acre EHU None required 1 on -site EHU in Unit G 1 EHU- 433 sq. ft. onsite or 866 sq. ft. off - site GRFA 36% of Tract A- 5,993 sq. ft. Tract A- buildable area Tract B -2- 13,623 sq. ft. Tract B- 15,111 sq. ft. ** Site Coverage (max) 25% of total site Per development plan No change Landscape Area 60% of total site Per development plan No change (min) Parking Per Chapter 12 -10, Per Town Code, min 2 No change * ** Vail Town Code enclosed spaces * Tract A updated GRFA will be calculated prior to ordinance drafting * *Updated to reflect GRFA calculations under current regulations ** *Should the EHU be relocated off -site, existing EHU parking will be absorbed by Unit G, thus increasing their existing parking for that unit. Town of Vail Page 8 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zoning District North: Residential High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District West: Residential Residential Cluster (RC) District East: Residential Residential Cluster (RC) District South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: 1. 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. Staff finds that the proposed major amendment to incorporate an existing EHU into the adjacent dwelling unit does not affect 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, as none of these components change. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff finds the removal of an on -site employee housing unit will reduce density and will improve the workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The purpose of the on -site employee housing unit was to provide more employee housing, but also potentially house someone who would manage the facilities on- site. Since the employee housing unit is not utilized by someone working on -site, the use may be better suited at a location near transportation and job cores. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Staff finds the removal of the employee housing unit will improve compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10, Vail Town Code. Unit G is already in compliance with parking requirements, as they have 2 enclosed spaces plus at least 2 additional spaces outside the garage. The employee housing unit has one space outside the unit, but today would be required to have at least two Town of Vail Page 9 spaces. The one parking space outside will be absorbed by Unit G and will eliminate a non - compliant unit with regard to parking. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Staff finds the application complies with Objective F of the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which calls for "placing employees closer to their place of work." The removal of the on -site employee housing unit and relocation to somewhere closer to public transportation and /or the job core will improve the employee experience and will provide for a more usable employee housing unit. Further, the Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan calls for an exchange program, which was created as a result of the plan. This exchange program is being proposed to be utilized in order to replace an underperforming EHU with a performing EHU. 5. 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. Staff finds that this criteria is not applicable to this application. The EHU in question is not located in a hazard area. 6. 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. Staff finds that because the structure and site plan are not changing at all, this criteria is not applicable. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Staff finds that the removal of one unit on site will reduce congestion on and off site. This is the result of fewer vehicles likely traveling to this location, one less unit accessed off the shared drive, and less pedestrians walking down the street to reach public transportation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Staff finds that because the structure, site and landscaping plan are not changing at all, this criteria is not applicable. Town of Vail Page 10 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Staff finds that because the structure is not changing, and the SDD is built out, this criteria is not applicable. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with conditions, to the Vail Town Council for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II. Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and from the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions of this major amendment to a special development district, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with conditions of the request for a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase ll, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the exchange of the on -site employee housing unit (EHU) requirement in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 13-5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, located at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G/ Lot G, Crossview at Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this major amendment to a special development district, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission apply the following condition: "The approval of a major amendment to SDD No. 29 is contingent upon the approval of an employee housing unit transfer in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with condition(s) of this major amendment to a special development district, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: Town of Vail Page 11 "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the September 26, 2011 staff memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. "I. The proposal to amend Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase 11, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Vail Town Code, and, 2. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the public hearing, that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided; and, 3. The request is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Master Plan. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 D. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997 E. Draft Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011 Town of Vail Page 12 A f. Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 August 9, 2011 RE: CRAIG COHN /SHARON PUCZYNSKI — Application for a Major Amendment to SDD No.29 — No Exterior Modifications: Crossview at Vail, 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G, Vail, Colorado 81657 To Whom It May Concern, As owners of 1460 Buffehr Creek Road — Unit G. we submit the following application for a Major Amendment to an SDD, no exterior modifications. Our 2272 SF residence contains a 433 SF Employee Housing Unit (EHU), which was required per the Special Development District (SDD) No. 29, The Valley Phase II. We are proposing to relocate this EHU to an alternate property in Vail, per the newly modified EHU Exchange Program. Prior to applying for the EHU exchange, we must first receive approval on our proposed Major Amendment to an SDD, no exterior modifications. Our proposed Major Amendment (no exterior modifications) to SDD No. 29, The Valley Phase II, is to update the GRFA table of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997 to reflect the existing GRFA for Crossview at Vail as depicted in the table below* as well as delete the provision for the inclusion of the EHU in Unit G located in Section 4 No. 11. The allowable GRFA for SDD No. 29, The Valley Phase II, Lower Development Area, which includes Unit G is limited to 13,623 SF. The following GRFA analysis was calculated and confirmed by Warren Campbell, Senior Planner June 4, 2005 and is located in the Community Development serving as official record. *Existing GRFA for Crossview at Vail (7 UNITS) Unit A 2082 SF Unit B 2115 SF Unit C 2051 SF Unit D 2100 SF Unit E 1937 SF Unit F 2409 SF Unit G 2417 SF (INCLUDES 433 SF EHU) TOTAL 15,111 SF E1 wa J-0 L :Swf 'WghodWs AN- cw��i y I� FL o " 0.9 � s rr_._ ,y q. un � � —..cam. , �. - __• �,.. ... �. .. .....��.... � . �. �.._ ._.. vJ .I' „ L ri tb i [I'i /" T . �0 jp i f a�• � ffL � ' Y 4.i t i 0 �7 'I �I• i U I 9if7 :1 s� r , a m� • 0 f1 �F�u 1. f 1.1 �ee¢n ~oT tai 00 o n' I � � I ✓' � �n pp F If I POW" �p tT ,a I lb h _ `f �;Jr, - - I,rl..I X77'4 t if gi t 8 I s +° q 0 / rS � o @(�u it Ps IInn gg < s la�D . . . . . . . . . . W'o gnu Ii p1l .1 it DT n y . - -._�v i £fi ��- j Alt 7Pd i cdd �I I ,.x ' a) Sig ��► 1 I� tp� I �---� •S ei�r� �S� \� �� lug I� r` CC au .e�il.•iU, .Q �—•, q� \��On�n ,LJ,I ly 3c r! 1_ a , � fi 3(E' i E �p sG i I I b, L u , sz��lss Co' gjnl E f "In b<8 "io r �'I � Z � E z r r z "�sanRehr iH Aj lit litiorT T 'T-(.%e -iJ a Lll J i III 4 55 j of N 15 is litiorT T 'T-(.%e -iJ a Lll J i III 4 TI. 0.1 -Ila k u>il I�j � �l�i iilf + a�Ui� c,� 1� 0�� i 1� � �. � LL f7T 45 tic I 7t MT Hill wtl - Nil Map U. 10 tT 4i COON, I FC11) Lid MEN 65 TI. 0.1 -Ila k u>il I�j � �l�i iilf + a�Ui� c,� 1� 0�� i 1� � �. � LL f7T 45 tic I 7t MT Hill wtl - Nil Map U. 10 4z- T I T A�D 4-7 I Ell - -- - ------- .�+ moti 0 1 mol .:".. r7 1;C - T7, .a Y , r � ' rr , i t ' F.. r� y � ... -. ♦ :.rat_ r e II f i r i � A J I M r • "" p S 1 W I } S PW i p i Zic° it :Jii Vq'f I �r31 � •I }..,,�� •,: f� ;,p/?�;rt+ULL� i i I �' T-*� AYu v� � �P i I I'(K'•� ��i t I�y� n r� � I � , � I �. �;, �...: ��' I, �I�l I� I.• I L' TI x � II i .� � 'I• ° i j � �I h 'iil i•,r" �y '� , i 7 i � � �Z �� I i I �r � I • I. N I; d� �. S �• ,,�z � f 6 <�r � �sff _ dlPz �S ���} oz3� R� s . •N • r. .• jj y •.vr , ' i �;�r_w_ - -- �,�♦�; �• "��.•, ! u' ILA • KE SVA I N 01 Dion -f 0 i 1 6 gp ji 15, � n• �o ; 4 �u $tign7.�, tic oiiR 6 6° up n� G i N 8' °., i+ p 1. Az �. n � x �V.'� °'A " "Ni jxhodges 4 FFa,, G °,+„ ws .:a I ®'.. "ri - -.. -+ �.r ; • F: �..' .. i t t � .. � ' , + rf k .',. I. a .r r f�1 r '•�' F ILL! � ` � C: ,vz„ " 7 i ^ ♦ a� r } *� r4' VI Ij AMC, w �b m rT t r y r , IM p,� � III � -. .��I � -31 L T, (CIDA PIP I q id I 14 AM— go zi ik PH J , L i' �I M n s • r. , M 1 � • ,-; w '74 Vv rt 0 i4i� Win_ t ° j�i� � pp j IL `Z-11 ii II -- ` , - co { r ticr; 1 Z ZY S ++I s e'll ticr; 1 Z r NNy j i 0 C r U _ Q �.I i P n 0 Ali [ IPa- 3i^, s r, I: L r Pla�q i R.�i.0 to d U col P ' 1 ,12 is .. o�-py� ) f � .. Z• . a ep +a e► � ��N w� � � n � r a+ ' 4e Tf p list TT T -— — — -� �, e Ddb 1 a� �d �S -ICy\ tf Yv lyn �r ILp p W _ ir q � o F j 8 i, rr w -. ✓ M # a t I I. 37 I -77 Q� Y •I II � �I r, � � I �4 R,� L11[ O� _ rG 1 I - -- s 4 of ? or^ �� ��� �o• ��� - )ka � I' t z$ 23 x ro� �n) 7 4, O'� i o kT 0 �N7 1 `` ��� !� Lam, I � � � � � }��,Ol�� e• ��� — ._ �- I I� �,� .. �\ uaQQ¢¢ Mr— cc?) J 071 i !;f q y t I. 3 ,� <sga�ol� <I D 9 �• III ! i 1 I l I I A ` ( I df- ZL .- o - g �•.. Da�J'M'r H,� '.i.. h _..%a, `��s`�a..w"T.�r''.�,d6 A...td•. +':u:::: �4'��..`.. . ''��:�:.'�.. ....:x... .. :I'I _ __ '�"7L..a �,..:- �. .. .. .J� ,i, L {p r o Ll FC ' 5 - r r �q �n r (y O@ 1 \ 6 "o a F�� Puu) I a 4 i0 �i� ► Vic) • � , ' goo - , ., Q g� 0 o, poll PLLQ, r O nr I v j I�IL" F. 'UUtll� - r r �q �n r (y O@ 1 \ 6 "o a F�� Puu) I a 4 i0 �i� ► L oc ,w Level LUrr L.eJeA Lower IL,evcl jckr LL,, ,U Ares. Wu: l7 r� �UC�;on 6 7SA x .3D. 15)�k saa U� l -7o), 5 ISI�,v �-75 k x, L� S= MIS So (,. aS 151(,4 /5/(0 ,�T-7 k q3 q3 J outer tevel %o+o X. 3� = 053.0 � 3O_ I9 ga�. D �ra { 519 13 ^du o, 93 C al�s1: ► � .3­6: 3T -5 •.�.A, ,�C- �« a er f-Cr- I 1130 3(, No - yS: 7S Level 0 193? G� „ qD7, L pNJ er L-2 ,)e � A6.',� Lj ;u q-7) 97� 59 S X98 �yg & � 131-7 D O (y8 50 I fi(I UAA 151111, 5� ORDINANCE NO. 17 Series of 1993 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD NO. 28, THE VALLEY, PHASE II) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, Parkwood Realty has submitted an application for a Special Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The Valley, Phase li, a part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 to be known as Special Development District No. 28; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 28 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish such Special Development District No. 28. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 28. Section 2. Special Development District No. 28 Special Development District No. 28 (SDD No. 28) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase II, The Valley, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting of two areas. Tract A (upper development area) consists of .860 acres and Tract B -2 (lower development area) consists of 2.418 acres. Section 3. Purpose Special Development District 28 is established to insure comprehensive development and use of Ordinance Nn, 17, Ssri- of 1993 8—nd H..dirg an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vall. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets the design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As stated in the staff memoranda dated July 12, 1993 and April 26, 1993, there are significant aspects of Special Development District 28 which are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone district. SDD 28 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes and driveway alignments will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. SDD 28 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints which must be addressed in the overall design of the project. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 28 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Parkwood Realty and consists of the following documents: 1. Final plat of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 completed by Intermountain Engineering, Limited dated July 8, 1993. 2. Structural engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993. 3. Soils report for Tracts A -1 and A -2 by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993. 4. Site plan of the lower development area (Tract B -2) by Randy Hodges dated April 24, 1993, (Sheet number 1.) 5. Site plan for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated November 6, 1991, (Sheet number 4.) 6. Detailed analysis of the retaining walls, driveway, prototypical building sections and regrading for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated July 12, 1992, (Two sheets, unnumbered.) 7. Hazard analysis letters by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. B. A landscape plan by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993, (Sheet number 2.) 9. A drainage plan by Range West, Inc. dated January 28, 1993. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1983 2 Second Readirg 2, Permitted Uses: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space C. Public and private roads 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Bed and Breakfasts as further regulated by Section 18.58.310. 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 5. Setbacks The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plans for Tract A and Tract B -2. Ordinance No. 17, Series o1 1993 3 S000W Heading 6. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit nine (9) single family dwelling units, two units located on Tract A and seven units located on Tract B -2. 7. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 8. Parking: Parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.52 (Off- Street Parking and Loading). Each unit shall have a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces. 9. GRFA: GRFA for Tracts A and B -2 shall conform to paragraph 11(E) of this ordinance. 10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final landscape plan shall provide at least the minimum number of trees and shrubs shown on the plan prepared by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993 reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 12, 1993. 11. Design Requirements: At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the following requirements: a. Buildings on Tracts A -1 and A -2 shall be "benched -in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site shall not be permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings shall not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. b. Buildings on Tracts A -1 and A -2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. C. Buildings on Tract A -2 shall be designed with a turn - around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A -2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department shall require that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There shall be a minimum height of 12.5 feet of clearance in the turnaround area to allow Ordinance No. 17, Sena: d 1793 4 S.-nd Fl-dig I 0 • • for fire truck maneuvering. d. The sod areas shall align with the existing sod areas of Grouse Glen located to the west of Tract B -2 and the sod type shall match Grouse Glen. e. The GRFA of the proposal shall comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area (Tract B -2) and each envelope in the upper development area (Tract A) may be modified up to 50 square feet per unit as long as the total GRFA for each tract does not exceed the maximum of for the (ewer development area (Tract B••2) and X33 ;(6,152 f 59) for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower development area (Tract B -2 total 5900 * The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column as long as the GRFA does not exceed the total shown for each tract. " Ytia adtlit €enal 309 { 8 fe R ug �k � p areani rte e :, n Ytt 157'grrtrlt2tl f. The architectural design of Building B located in Tract B -2 shall be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The architect for Building B shall revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building A or C. g. Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract A, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on -site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. h. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower 5 Ordinance No. 17, series of 1993 Second Reading Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage* credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 F3. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 LZe, 1367+369 45()61, 4f3 4,5 t0.tai . 13623 Upper deveiRpment area Tract A A -1. 3252 0.4 *3J7W.n 225 33.9.7 600 A -2. Jt7iT' 79. �; 2RI M 225 3046 600 total 5900 * The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column as long as the GRFA does not exceed the total shown for each tract. " Ytia adtlit €enal 309 { 8 fe R ug �k � p areani rte e :, n Ytt 157'grrtrlt2tl f. The architectural design of Building B located in Tract B -2 shall be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The architect for Building B shall revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building A or C. g. Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract A, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on -site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. h. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower 5 Ordinance No. 17, series of 1993 Second Reading development area, the applicant shall dedicate public access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path. i. Immediately following the second reading of this SDD, applicant shall record at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office an instrument which shall notify future buyers of the reports, drawings and Town of Vail approved development plans for this parcel. The restriction shall state that: "Tracts A and B -2 of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 has been approved as an Special Development District by the Town of Vail, Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993. This approval for Tract A mandates building envelope location and road /driveway alignments. These approved plans may be amended only by the Town of Vail, per Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code. Future owners should review engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993 and a soils study by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993 on file with the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Future owners should also be aware that all retaining walls should meet the maximum height limits set forth in the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Proposed plans dated July 12, 1993, by Randy Hodges meeting such requirements are on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department." 12, Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is $.30 per square foot. 13` Dpi e: _146-:11 P €ior to,lssuance',trf.anY; bwlding pe m>t ; within Wi SDP4 ,ihe apjpcar►t shall prs�vide a drainage.plan which; meets the &tanitgrds; of the Town', �n�irteer,: Section 5. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 6. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the 6 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 Second Rmft - P approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 7. 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 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING THIS 17th day of August, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 7th day of September, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ST: crt 0. Holly t. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Ad"- Marga t A. Osterfoss, Mayor INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 7th day of September, 1993. ST: Holly .McCutcheon, Town Clerk CAORn93.17 Margar UL A. OSterfoss, Mayor -- — 7 Ordinance Na. 17, Scrim of 1993 S—d Reading 0 El 3 3 w I p CY o n Q ° V U 0 N I S�Q O ° 4 Q -Ch O U• Q r--i d b 3 �g C � O Q 7 4 3 N C� 9 0 n o ? n 4 c, Q a Wa °ono 080091@ 0 Nm, i�3:,-a rD�r i m g3 o° j � • mp ° O s x -,a-: ° °' ° a m a mQ mm N � g -C fD m gal 0 3 Q-mm= Q8,s� Q fl o m 5) CD ° a n O _ o z n' IZDZ 'O m Oa- Qmp �0 o P. g-m :, � Fa s.m� Q- O a 0 Om� a .D o v�0 m ��� ° °om° (D mss$ ID 6_-j 3 tea° QL ° Q, a m -z�aQ°�a, 3 SL � � 5 1 2 a ir g P. .U;. $ - a weir m ; �~ v n .� •' _ � _ •'FC'! 9 'Y1 O W 0" V < \ a } & \ / \ e / \ 0 \/ / \ J7 / dJ \ \� k \ } a\ R\ \ / \ k a/ \ / f \ \ � » a� § � \ \\\ ))7\ /2 / / \ JE§\ % \ / 7 6 \ \ :z \ / \ \ / \� CL }�7§ o \ \ / \\} CL az° \.�0 � \ $ E_ / / \ � C 2 / 5. }] § \ / 7 » a .7 .g. \� 2� }; /� o, /) n. \ \ ) ! > 7 P % § { § } � { (� |\ � �\ (§ (/ j/ [(D �| |§ ■, \ } m & 0 \ \ ƒ \ \ 0 \ $ 0 0 a -0 M O O O -0 c � 0 � O 2 \�� \ »a § Up off 2% � - � � ƒ §®7 ■®� 'e . • 0 ORDINANCE NO. 6 Series of 1997 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 17, SERIES OF 1993; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 (THE VALLEY, PHASE 11) AND PROVIDING FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS CONTENTS; PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND ACCESSORY USES; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RECREATION AMENITIES TAX, AND OTHER SPECIAL PROVISIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 29 for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The Valley, Phase II, a part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on February 10, 1997 held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend SDD No. 29; and WHEREAS, application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 29, which relate to Tract A (Upper Development), and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 29 as they specifically relate toTract A; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, is hereby repealed and reenacted, as follows: [Note: Text that is stricken is being deleted and text that is 04004 is being added.] Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report, The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.40 (Special Development Districts) of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the 0.1nan- No B, series of 1997 report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the major amendment of for SDD 29, Section 2. Purposes. Special Development District No, 28 29 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are significiant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone district. Section . Special Development District No. 28 29 Established Special Development District No. 2829 (SDD No. 2829) is established for the development on two parcels of land. Tract A (upper development area) consists of .880 acres and Tract B -2 (lower development area) consists of 2.418 accres. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 2829 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Parkwood Realty and consists of the following documents: 1. Final plat of The Valley, Phase Il, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 completed by Intermountain Engineering, Limited dated July 8, 1993. 2. Structural engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993. 3. Soils report for Tracts A -1 and A -2 by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993. 4. Site plan of the lower development area (Tract B -2) by Randy Hodges dated April 24, 1993, (Sheet number 1.) 5. Site plan for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated November 6, 1991, (Sheet number 4.) 6. Detailed analysis of the retaining walls, driveway, prototypical building sections and regrading for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated July 12, 1992, (Two sheets, unnumbered.) 7. Hazard analysis letters by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993, 8. A landscape plan by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993, (Sheet number 2.) 2 Omin- M. B, Series f 1997 • i • 9. A drainage plan by Range West, Inc. dated January 28, 1993. 10. Elevations of the seven single family homes to be constructed in the lower development area (Tract B -2), (Sheet numbers 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17.) These sheets correspond to homes A,B,C,D,E, and F. 11. Floor plans and elevations of residence G, by Randy Hodges dated September 1, 1993 sheet numbers 1, G2, G2a, and G3. This home is to be constructed in the lower development area (Tract B -2), and shall include a Type III employee housing un€t, having 534 square feet. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Residence G, the applicant shall sign a deed restriction on a form provided by the Community Development Department which shall conform to all requirements for a Type III employee housing unit, Section 18.57.060. 12. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special Development District. 13. Topographic survey, dated 1127197 iderjtifymg;th pppeseducldng ;envelope: °for Tract A. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 1. Acreage: The site is made up of two parcels: Tract A and B -2, The Valley, Phase Il. Site A is made up of .860 acres and site B -2 is made up of 2.418 acres. 2. Permitted Uses: a. Tract A 1. Single Family residential dwellings 2. Twd- family residential dwellings: 3. Primary/secondary residential dwigalings 4. Open Space 5. Public and private roads b. Tract, B-2 1. Single family residential dwellings 2. Open space 3. Public and private roads 3. Condition,gl -Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Bed and Breakfasts as further regulated by Section 18.58.310 3 Ordin— No. 6, Series of 1997 C. Type II E. HU, located on Traci; A 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 5. Setbacks: The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plans for Tract A and Tract B -2, or as provided for with the building envelopes. 6. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit nine (9) single family dwelling units, two (2) units located on Tract A and seven (7) single fa'mi uy units located on Tract B -2. 7. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 8. Parking: Parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.52 (Off - Street Parking and Loading). Each unit shall have a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces. 9. GRFA: GRFA for Tracts A and B -2 shall conform to paragraph 11(E) of this ordinance. 10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final landscape plan shall provide at least the minimum number of trees and shrubs shown on the plan prepared by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993 reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 12, 1993. 11. Design Requirements: At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the following requirements: a. The buildings on Tracts A 1 and A 2 shall be "benched -in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site shall not be permitted. 4 Ordin -m No. 5, Series of 4997 • • 0 In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings shall not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. b. The Buildings on Tracts A-; and -A 2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. C. The Buildings on Tract A--!' shall be designed with a turn -around using the apron in front of the garage en env blepe A 2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope, The Fire Department shall require that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There shall be a minimum height of 12.5 feet of clearance in the turnaround area to allow for fire truck maneuvering. d. The sod areas shall align with the existing sod areas of Grouse Glen located to the west of Tract B -2 and the sod type shall match Grouse Glen. e. The GRFA of the proposal shall comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area (Tract B -2) and Pepe in the upper development area (Tract A) may be modified up to 50 square feet per unit as long as the total GRFA for each tract does not exceed the maximum of 13,623 (13,314 + 309) for the lower development area (Tract B -2) and 5993 (6,152 - 159) for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower development area (Tract B -2): Base Floor Credit GRFA eerfent garage Area" everege- credit A. 1816 225 2041 46 463 B. 1816 225 2041 46 493 C. 1845 225 2070 — 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 G. 1676 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1857 +309" 450 2616 46 459 total 13623 Upper development area (Tract A) : A 1. 3252 -89 - 81722 9z5 3897 $gg ielel— 6998 225 3946 69B 'rract A 5993 450 6443 1240 *Owimgs submitted at this time e)(eeed the alleyffible by the amebint shewn in this eelumn. At fime Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column as long as the 5 Oldi —n- No, 6. S.0-& 1997 0 GRFA does not exceed the total shown for each tract. ""The additional 309 square feet is made up of 159 taken from the lower development area and 150 ' granted by the Town of Vail. f- The a ehite...auFaj desip of Building °v legated On T- e t n n h" be tif. Prior to excavation on Tract A, the applicant shall fit. either document that all excavation will occur on -site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. Prior , to; - June :1, 1997, the existing wiewjttg.tteclr Tract A tt3t{ t removed. The, existing driveway cut for Tract;A shaite slovttt otr #he;fipal plat as tt.i only permitted access io the site. 12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is $30 per square foot. Ordina— No 6. Series of 1997 13. Drainage Plan: Prior to issuance of any building permits within this SDD, the applicant shall provide a drainage plan which meets the standards of the Town Engineer. Section 5. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 6. The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 7. 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. Seption 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 7 Ordinance No 6, Series of 1997 • • • INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 4th day of March, 1997. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 25th day of March, 1997 in the Municipal Building of the Town. f S Navas, Mayor Pro -Tem 4 ATTEST: Q1U /L(L� Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS < ?5'r° dayof MV CAT 1997. 4�� Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: - Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991 0 aye•,.......: 9 100. o n;G7 y•Z 0 0 •`�O Q'9g0Q .....••. t,�.•• +O M O _ 9 Q can �* Q a- 73(D O fl� 2 �. N N a :� a W� m C) 0 cn ' l9 (<D (�aD --l0 (a. m n @ y am m D a z (D 1 p m o Q a C7 3 o o ° 6 o y m z y_m O D Q : o � z> o O o Q CL o ' O N a� m O m _ oa �a° m�fl7O� ° --- ,oaf ° m� - ,= �Qc�'�maoo°0Q a m O D m— 3 _ y° 3c a ommoo(o ° CD VIII d _ n ti a O a u O O ro Q Q (DD Q p O�° a (D cn �Z, 03`Dff -< 3 5: ,ocg ? N ° (D m ° 7 cD r -< Q ya° Q(D o� m3LT�(Dm a cL ' -o Q -Q 'p (D CO 0 - n 4 D a N° Q O' Q O O O° _ O D O Q O CD ° CD (D a m a (D o? Q Q 3 3 n O O --r m �. ° O O Q -�. z ..i R a (SDI Q� 0 ti O 0� 3 m m m a Q D- a m o 6 ° .7 0 �� (a (D rnrQQ� C 0 (D Q rQ p 0 g N Q c 3 a m 1� Q- Q ° ca @ a 3 m (D a °- (D <D Q °. o ° S— i 'ancaQm�3X�cfl o o O g Q Q o a o 0 m m m m m a (D a 5 Z) n. ° O T 0 IV C ov n Z vag�e'a..a� za mpm 3'gg! ■ O 3 C' m xPzm�mm' °vamvmn.�z M M7 a ig�'a z am�aar �v�n CEnL�gFim a sf°a ° �4sgg��$; .S Ila cr m ura9 oa9 mm <csc=i_° o 25 g SIP �ej g,g gP.S g3 Y -i tn`�oa <S_ m EHH- MommmY' a AA �� g� a�Sa a 9im<]'��$ j y m z [if 4-M mYT 3 GS FF$�o z�moo =��p�qF ��ry,. m t b • r y � iQ pzgo . G ORDINANCE NO. 19 Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 29, THE VALLEY PHASE II, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12- 9A -10, AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCHANGE OF THE ON- SITE EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT (EHU) REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 -13 -5, EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION EXCHANGE PROGRAM, VAIL TOWN CODE; LOCATED AT 1460 BUFFEHR CREEK ROAD, UNIT G/ LOT G, CROSSVIEW AT VAIL, PHASE 3, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, amendments to a Special Development District are permitted pursuant to parameters set forth for such in Section 12 -9A -10 of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing on September 26, 2011 to consider the proposed amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail and forwarded a recommendation of to the Town Council of the Town of Vail based on the criteria and findings presented in the staff memorandum; and WHEREAS, Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, was established in order to provide an option for employee housing deed restrictions to be removed in exchange for a new deed restriction and /or payment to the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendment to Special Development District No. 29, complies with the review 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 the major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedence or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail; and Ordinance No. 19. Series 2011 WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Vail Town 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 amendments to Special Development District No. 29, which removes the on -site employee housing requirement, thus allowing the applicant to exchange the deed restriction in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: *All additions are illustrated with bold italics and deletions are illustrated with str;kethr„ gh Section 1. Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011, is to amend Special Development District No. 29 to allow for the requirement for an on -site employee housing unit to be met on- or off -site. 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 major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II. Requests for the amendment of a special development district follow the procedures outlined in Chapter 12 -9A of the Vail Town Code. Section 3. Special Development District No. 29 Special Development District No. 29, as established by Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, and amended by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1997, is hereby amended as follows (sections not being amended are omitted): Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 29 is approved and shall constitute the plan for Ordinance No. 19, Series 2011 2 development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Parkwood Realty and consists of the following documents: 11. Floor plans and elevations of residence G, by Randy Hodges dated September 1, 1993, sheet number 1, G2, G2a and G3. This home is to be constructed in the lower development area (Tract B -2), and shall include a Type III employee housing unit, having 534 square feet. Prior to issuance of building permit for Residence G, the applicant shall sign a deed restriction on a form provided by the Community Development Department which shall conform to all requirements for a Type II employee housing unit, . This employee housing unit may be relocated off -site in accordance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 11. Design Requirements: At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the following requirements: e. The GRFA of the proposal shall comply with the following chart: The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area (TractB -2) and in the upper development area (Tract A) may be modified up to 50 square feet per unit as long as the total GRFA for each tract does not exceed the maximum of 15,111 square feet 13,623 (13,314 +309 for the lower development area (Tract B -2) and 5993 (6,1 FAQ; for the upper development area (Tract A). Section 4. Conditions of Approval The following conditions of approval shall become part of the Town's approval of this amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase 11: 1. This amendment shall only be effective upon execution of an employee housing deed restriction exchange in compliance with Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is Ordinance No. 19, Series 2011 3 for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of October, 2011 and a public hearing for second reading of the Ordinance set for the 18th day of October, 2011 in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 19, Series 2011 4 TOWN OF 0) VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 2011 SUBJECT: A request for the review of variances from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110053) Applicant: William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY The applicant, William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis, is requesting variances from the setback, density control, and site coverage provisions of the Two - Family Primary/Secondary District to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI I of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), proposed architectural plans (Attachment B), the 1989 Staff memorandum associated with the front and side setback variances for a garage addition to the eastern side of the existing duplex (Attachment C), the 1997 Staff memorandum associated with the garage addition setback variances for the eastern side of the duplex (Attachment C), the 1997 Staff memorandum associated with the side setback and site coverage variances for a similar two -car garage addition to the subject side of the existing duplex (Attachment D), Staff interpretations #31 and #36 of the Town Code related to non - conforming structures and GRFA (Attachment E), and communication from neighboring property owner Steve McEachron (Attachment F). II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances from the setback, density control, and site coverage provisions of the Two - Family Primary/Secondary District to allow for the construction of a two -car garage addition to the western unit of the existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail (Attachment B). In 1989 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved front and side setback variances to facilitate a one -car garage addition to the eastern side of the subject duplex (Attachment C). The proposed garage addition is similar to a previous two -car garage addition application approved by the Town of Vail in 1997 (Attachment D). The Planning and Environmental Commission approved setback and site coverage variances to facilitate this previous application; however, the previous garage addition was not constructed and the variance approvals have since expired. The existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail was originally constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction and is legally non - conforming in regard to the Town of Vail's density requirements. The subject lot is 11,365 sq. ft. in size and pursuant to Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, only one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot with less than 14,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. The proposed garage addition consists of two vehicle bays (11' -3" by 24' each) separated by a mostly enclosed, five foot (5) wide breezeway. The proposed breezeway element provides a pedestrian connection between the driveway at the front of the house and the existing entry door located on the west side of the residence. The proposed garage addition (which includes both bays and the breezeway) is a total of 640 sq. ft. of garage area. Pursuant to Chapter 12 -15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, deductions of up to 300 sq. ft. per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit are allowed from the GRFA calculations. Since the subject lot is less than 14,000 sq. ft. in area, only one dwelling unit is "allowed" (the existing duplex is legally non - conforming). Therefore, only up to two 300 sq. ft. garage deductions may be applied to the GRFA calculations for this lot. The existing eastern one -half of this duplex has a one car garage and has already utilized one of the two 300 sq. ft. deductions. The applicant is proposing a 640 sq. ft. garage addition; one 300 sq. ft. garage deduction may be applied, resulting in 340 sq. ft. of proposed new GRFA. In 1997, the Town of Vail approved a similar two -car garage addition for this residence. In that proposal the garage was interpreted to be separated from the house by a breezeway. The common wall of the breezeway and garage was only three feet (3') tall and not considered an enclosing wall. In 1997, the previously approved breezeway was not interpreted as GRFA. Based upon today's interpretations of the GRFA regulations, that breezeway would be calculated as GRFA. In 1997, the previously approved garage addition was not calculated as GRFA by using three garage deductions (one for the existing east unit garage, and two for the proposed west unit garage). As noted above, based upon today's interpretations of the GRFA regulations, only one garage deduction Town of Vail Page 2 could be applied to this two -car garage and the remainder would be defined as new GRFA. The allowable GRFA for the subject property is 5,228 sq. ft. The existing duplex is calculated as approximately 2,882 sq. ft. of GRFA (for zoning purposes both sides of the duplex are treated as one entity). However, because the existing duplex is non- conforming in regard to the units per lot portion of the density standards (only one unit allowed on lots less than 14,000 sq. ft.), the existing duplex is therefore also considered legally non - conforming in regard to the GRFA portion of the density standards based upon a 1996 and 2000 interpretations of the Vail Town Code (Attachment E). The consequence of this legal non - conforming status is that the existing duplex can not expanded without a variance beyond the existing GRFA, even if that existing floor area is less than the total allowed by the GRFA formulas prescribed by the Zoning Regulations. The proposed garage addition encroaches into the 15 foot required side setback by approximately 5 feet. Approximately 45 sq. ft. of the proposed garage area would be located in the side setback. In 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar side setback variance for a previous garage addition proposal for this residence. In 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar front and side setback variance for the eastern unit of this duplex. The proposed garage addition also exceeds the allowable 20% site coverage for the lot. The applicant is requesting 26% site coverage. In 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar 25% site coverage variance to facilitate a previous garage addition proposal for this residence. The applicant is also proposing to modify the existing driveway. Today, 2586 Davos Trail has two curb cuts and a horseshoe shaped driveway that runs continuously along the front fagade of the existing house. The existing asphalt driveway is unheated, exceeds slopes of 20 %, and is legally non - conforming in regard to the driveway standards prescribed by Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing no modifications to the eastern one -half of the existing driveway located in front of the adjoining one -half of the duplex. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing western one -half of the driveway and replace it with landscaping directly in front of the western side of the duplex. Utilizing the existing western curb cut, the applicant is proposing to construct a straight driveway that is aligned with the proposed garage addition. The proposed garage is approximately 5 feet higher than the adjoining first floor elevation of the house to accommodate a driveway grade of approximately 9 %. The previous 1997 garage addition proposal was at the same first floor elevation as the existing house; however, that driveway design would exceed today's maximum allowable slopes of 10% for unheated driveways and 12% for heated d riveways. III. BACKGROUND Town of Vail Page 3 The existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail was constructed in 1973 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The subject property, along with other portions of West Vail, was annexed into the Town of Vail on October 29, 1986 after the adoption of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1986. On July 24, 1989 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a front and side setback variance to allow for the construction of a one -car garage addition to the eastern half of the subject duplex (Attachment C). On September 8, 1997 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved side setback and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of a two -car garage addition to the subject western half of the property (Attachment D). The previously approved garage addition was separated from the existing house by a four foot (4') wide breezeway. At that time, the applicant proposed to separate the garage addition and the breezeway with a three foot (3') tall guardrail (wall) rather than a floor -to- ceiling wall. This design allowed Staff and the applicant to interpret the breezeway as not being enclosed and not counting toward GRFA. This design and interpretation was intended to avoid the need for a density variance. This addition was not constructed, so this variance approval has expired. The Planning and Environmental Commission has historically approved variances from setback, site coverage, and other similar development standards to facilitate the construction of garages at existing legally non - conforming residences. On September 7, 2011 the Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposed garage addition. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed garage was substantially attached to the existing house and created a single architecturally integrated structure in compliance with Section 14 -10 -6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code. The Board was generally supportive of the proposed design and encouraged the applicant to proceed forward through the development review process. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Zoning Regulations (Title 12) Chapter 12 -1: TITLE, PURPOSE, AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 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 Town of Vail Page 4 natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. ARTICLE 12 -6D: TWO FAMILY PRIMARY /SECONDARY DISTRICT (in part) 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 zone 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 Town of Vail Page 5 12 -6D -6. Setbacks. In the primary /secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). 12 -6D -8. Density Control. A. Dwelling Units. Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area. 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site. a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). C. Employee Housing Units. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and 8 of this section, a type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type I employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet or greater. 12 -6D -9. Site Coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. Chapter 12 -15: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (in part) Town of Vail Page 6 12 -15 -3. Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions. 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. Chapter 12 -17: VARIANCES (in part) 12 -17 -1. Purpose. Reasons for Seeking Variance. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. Development Standards (Title 14) 14 -10 -6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection 8 of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. Town of Vail Page 7 B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Lot Area: Zoning: Land Use Designation Geological Hazards: Development Standard Setbacks (ft): Front East Side West Side Rear GRFA (sq.ft.): Site Coverage (sq ft): Landscape Area (sq ft) Town of Vail 2586 Davos Trail Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1 11,365 sq. ft. (0.260 acres) Two - Family Primary/Secondary District Low Density Residential None Allowed Existing 1997 variance Proposed 20. 16* no change no change 15 8* no change no change 15 35 10 11 15 33 no change no change 5,228 2,882 no change 3,222 ** 2,273 (20 %) 2,308 (20.3 %) 2,835(25 %) 6,819 (60 %) 7,637 (67 %) 6,895(61%) 2,972(26%) 7,405(65%) Page 8 Parking (spaces): East 3 3 (1 enclosed) no change no change West 3 3 (0 enclosed) 3 (2 enclosed) 3 (2 enclosed) * Nicholls (east unit) setback variances approved July 24, 1989 * *640 sq. ft. total garage floor area minus one 300 sq. ft. garage deduction = 340 sq. ft. GRFA VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity in comparison to previous variance approvals by the Planning and Environmental Commission. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve these variance requests, Staff recommends the Commission imposes a condition that the garage area not exceed 600 sq. ft. (the common garage size in Vail) to further minimize the impacts of this proposal on other uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The subject duplex was constructed, without garages, under Eagle County jurisdiction and later annexed into the Town of Vail. The existing duplex is legally non - conforming in regard to the density control requirements of the Town of Vail's Two - Family Primary/Secondary District. The Planning and Environmental Commission has approved numerous variances from the setback, site coverage, and other similar development standards for other properties to facilitate the construction of garages at existing legally non - conforming residences. Therefore, Staff does not view the approval of this request as a grant of special privilege. The proposed garage addition is similar to a previous two -car garage addition application approved by the Town of Vail in 1997. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved setback and site coverage variances to facilitate this previous Town of Vail Page 9 Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary District South: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary District East: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary District West: Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity in comparison to previous variance approvals by the Planning and Environmental Commission. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve these variance requests, Staff recommends the Commission imposes a condition that the garage area not exceed 600 sq. ft. (the common garage size in Vail) to further minimize the impacts of this proposal on other uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The subject duplex was constructed, without garages, under Eagle County jurisdiction and later annexed into the Town of Vail. The existing duplex is legally non - conforming in regard to the density control requirements of the Town of Vail's Two - Family Primary/Secondary District. The Planning and Environmental Commission has approved numerous variances from the setback, site coverage, and other similar development standards for other properties to facilitate the construction of garages at existing legally non - conforming residences. Therefore, Staff does not view the approval of this request as a grant of special privilege. The proposed garage addition is similar to a previous two -car garage addition application approved by the Town of Vail in 1997. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved setback and site coverage variances to facilitate this previous Town of Vail Page 9 application; however, the previous garage addition was not constructed and the variance approvals have since expired. The applicant is requesting to construct a two -car garage similar to the one approved in 1997 with a less steep driveway, increased landscaping in front of the existing house, and a floor -to- ceiling wall between the vehicle bays and the breezeway. The Vail Town Code, and the interpretation of the code, was less restrictive in 1997 than today (maximum allowable driveway grades, the connection of houses and garages as a single structure, allowable GRFA for legally non - conforming duplexes on small lots, determining if a area in enclosed or unenclosed when calculating GRFA, etc.) Staff believes the applicant's current proposal is consistent with the character and intent of the variance applications approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1997. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission impose a condition that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed garage addition from 640 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. The typical two -car garage in Vail does not exceed 600 sq. ft. in size since the maximum of two 300 sq. ft. (600 sq. ft. total) GRFA deductions are allowed for a two -car garage. Staff believes a proposed garage of 600 sq. ft. or less would provide the applicant the minimum degree of relief from standards of the Vail Town Code to achieve compatibility and uniform treatment with other properties in the vicinity and the same zone district. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the proposed driveway associated with this request will improve the vehicular access to the subject property. The existing driveway does not comply with the engineering requirements of Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The existing driveway has a slope of more than 20% which exceed the maximum 10% slope allowed by the current Vail Town Code. The applicant's representative has testified that the subject western half of the duplex is inaccessible at times in the winter due to steepness and configuration of the existing driveway. The proposed new driveway will have snowmelt heating and is designed in conformance with the engineering requirements outlined in Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing a maximum driveway slope of 9 %. Staff believes the proposed driveway will improve public safety for the owners and guests of the subject property as well as the general public traveling along Davos Trail. Staff does not believe the requested variance will have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 10 In 1997 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved similar variance requests to facilitate the construction of a two car garage and breezeway at the subject property. The 1997 approved garage was not constructed and those approvals have since expired. The Vail Town Code requirements for driveway grades and the connection of garages and houses have become more restrictive since this previous variance approval. Additionally, constructing only a 3ft tall wall (guardrail) between the 1997 proposed breezeway and garage bay would not exempt the breezeway or garage from today's interpretation of the GRFA calculations. This short wall would not be considered an "exterior" wall and would not create unenclosed floor area. Neighboring property owners Steve McEachron, 2585 Davos Trail (across the street from the subject property), viewed a previous version of the proposed garage addition plans while Staff was conducting a site visit to the subject property. In response to reviewing the proposed plans, the McEachron's have submitted an email stating their opposition to a garage (carport) addition to the subject property taller than the existing house. They also stated their opposition to the removal of existing trees along Davos Trails (Attachment G). Neighboring property owner Hugh Schmidt, 2596 Davos Trail (adjacent to the proposed garage addition), reviewed the proposed garage addition plans in the Community Development Department office and verbally communicated his support for the proposed garage addition. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this request for a variances from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Section 12 -6D -8, Density Control, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Town of Vail Page 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission impose the following condition: "I. The applicant shall revise the proposed garage and breezeway to be no larger than 600 sq. ft. in total floor area. " 2. This variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: " "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 267 2011, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed Architectural Plans C. 1989 Nicholls Variance D. 1997 Aylesworth Variance Town of Vail Page 12 E. Staff Interpretation #31 F. McEachron Email Town of Vail Page 13 Attachment A Town of Vail Page 14 N C 3 d 'R � 1 i � _.- _ � l � ��� i � r � (�, � � i `', l �, 0 4 1 1 I � f , 1 iI 1��, � � , I 5 � � r � 8 � �° I r I �, y m� r f r r f �. � f � I � 'M ( r r ! I I I � � a< I 4.:. � f r f r( I � � � rrrr�l f � `\ ��r i i° �8 it f f� r � I / J r � / ` f 1 1 �f mr � � \ � � � � � � r � r � �-$ \ Fr i �r� � 4 i � � w + r I r � �� �� � l� ! � � rr � � � I � � I � r r� � � rr g !� � I , f � � r L r � r � r t 1 I r al � / � � ! I r � � � ' � i � � � i r f h r f I � � r r r � i t r � I �R� ��I I r � r, I I I �� r� l + f I , r � ! 4 I v N r i r � � i1 $fi r I � `�� s � I � ,_I f f� � f � � r+ f � '� i f l � � I 0 :A � u �� � �^ b �; f tt jr E _ x � r n z � �z112 41 V v � � 1 1 Y { t� .......... V, r z d ° � d 0 / $ 6 : 0 � I� ©------ - - -- - -- -- / \ \ 2--- -2 - \ -\ \ ' --- ar ®- a6 —,qr \�\ % $ VIP 4 \ `- ( \ �\ a } |6 $. > | 2 || , � � I b l 1 a v� Q a � aaF m` ;n 3` it — r r ti c V U f� Y S p L P I 1 1 S ! rrt1 it + a 4. Id 111, L.— f 1 i i j it 'I n _. i I C F r I �o I IT U ��aaFz� i fY@ 8�8 4s fir:§ 0 a acid Z D ' =f= C"" C a a � o z <an m a r" cn _ rn�OCo� wT Z rri �r� gar R� � $ `mss.= �"• Y N timg�rD G R C `�Y f r+ +7Jf z° ZZ I W W 9 w• ++ + i I C� `I CL � r I N I � a 9 ti 5 i6 yP° x 1 d 5 i �cc x Eli v FZ 0 i° Eli. � °� gcPY�� z _a Z e bk �9 , z�aw Fd gig i+i 54 v e TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 24, 1989 SUBJECT: Nicholls garage variance, Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone, First Filing. Applicant: Judith A. Nicholls I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a front and side setback variance in order to construct an attached single car garage and deck extension. The requested setback at the front ranges from approximately 18 feet 6 inches to 16 feet at the northwest corner of the proposed garage. There is also an encroachment due to the northwest roof overhang that creates a 12 foot setback. The deck addition maintains a 15 1/2 foot front setback. The desired side setback also varies, from approximately 12 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 3 inches for the garage. The deck extension would reduce the side setback to no less than 5 feet. The roof overhang maintains a 3 foot side setback. The site currently contains a duplex structure with a driveway that runs along the front of the building. The proposed garage along the side of the house presents good access from this driveway while maintaining the use of the driveway for the applicant as well as the adjacent property owners. The deck extension is required in order to provide access to the existing entrance to the unit. The garage is sited in such a way as to not conflict with an existing tree or with the existing entrance to the house. At the northeast corner of the house there is a proposed seating area to be constructed into and beyond the existing deck line. This proposed deck area encroaches beyond the allowable 10 foot minimum setback requirement by approximately 3 feet. It is the feeling of the staff that there is no particular hardship for this encroachment and that there is room in the rear of the lot for a deck expansion. Although the impacts of this proposed deck are minimal, we feel that this deck should be eliminated from the proposal due to the fact that there is no hardship. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. At the present time, there is no covered parking for this structure. We feel that the addition of covered parking for the unit presents a positive impact on the neighborhood and is in harmony with existing uses and structures in the vicinity. Given the present siting of the house, the garage location and size present a very reasonable request for a variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff has had a long standing policy of supporting variances if required for the construction of garages. Due to the siting of the existing structure on the lot, there is no room to construct a garage within the allowable setbacks. The garage has been designed in such a way as to minimize impacts and has been sized to minimize the variance request. The staff feels that approval of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The addition of a garage to residential structures is seen by the Community Development Department as a positive impact to transportation and traffic facilities. other than that, there is no impact in this proposal upon this criteria. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed variance is for approval. The staff feels that the garage has been sited in the only feasible location on this property. The siting maintains use of the driveway and provides the architectural connection required by the Design Guidelines. The sizing of the structure minimizes the degree of variance which is required. The proposed deck around the garage provides access to the front door of the structure and is not excessive in size. We do feel that as a condition of approval the octagonal seating area in the northeast corner of the new deck should be pulled back to provide a 10 foot setback from the property line. Betsy continued the presentation of the Slifer request with an explanation of the height variance request. She referred to an attached table in the memo, explained the criteria, and then gave the recommendation for approval. Betsy also circulated photos to the board members. Ned Gwathmey spoke as representative for the applicant. He offered a chart for viewing to avoid any confusion on elevations. He reviewed the chart and answered questions of the PEC members. He also showed the Snowdon and Hopkins plans of the project. Peter Patten noted that the attached sun /shade sketch in the height variance memo was inaccurate. The correct sun /shade sketch was included in the exterior alteration memo. Peggy Csterfoss thought the proposal would be an improvement and as presented would offer appropriate mitigation. Sid Schultz had no questions. Pam Hopkins agreed with Peggy and said that the height did not bother her. She had no problems with the request. Diana Donovan had no problems with the request. A motion for approval of the exterior alteration request was made by Peggy 4sterfoss, with two conditions of approval as per the staff memo. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion. Vote: 4 -0 -1 Chuck Crist abstaining. A motion of approval for the height variance request was made by Pam Hopkins. The motion was seconded by Sid Schultz. -Vote: 4 -0 -1 Chuck Crist abstaining. Item No. 3 A request -side and front setback_„v-arl°ances i?r °erd to cQngtruct a garage And decks =°_Lot 4, Block E, Va daS'Schone First Fi -iinq. Applicant: __..jud"ith�Nichols Rick Pylman described the request while referring to the plans. He briefly covered the criteria and gave the staff recommendation of approval. However, he stated, the staff could not support the proposed seating area and suggested it be eliminated from the request. The applicant's representative was Grant Riva. He handed out a letter to the PEC Board from an adjacent property owner in support of the proposal. He explained that the encroachments involved were necessary to allow access to the garage and said the proposal would modernize the home. He further explained that the main reason for the proposal was due to a problem with ice forming around the front door. Concerning the seating area, Grant explained that without a seating area, the deck would be of little use. He went on to say that if the deck was extended to the back of the house as suggested by the planning staff instead of in the proposed area, there would be more of an impact on neighbors. The proposed deck site is well screened from the neighbors. In summary, Grant asked that the request be approved as submitted. Chuck Crist said he supported the project as proposed. Pam Hopkins agreed, as did Sid Schultz. Peggy Osterfoss said the proposal made sense, especially since a neighbor had written a supportive letter. Diana agreed with Peggy. A motion was made by Pam Hopkins for approval of the request as submitted. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0, all in favor. Item No. 4 A request for a density variance and height variance and an exterior alteration for the Enzian Lodge at 705 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Enzian Lodge The staff representative was Kristan Pritz. The request involved an exterior alteration request as well as a height and density request. She began the presentation by reviewing the exterior alteration request. Referring to the memo, Kristan described the proposal which included requests to add a new entry on the north elevation, construct an area to be used for accessory lodge use or void space, and add a comprehensive landscape plan for the entire property. She further explained additional changes, but all were interior and did not require any approvals from the PEC. Kristan explained that the staff approved the removal of approximately 16 spaces in the basement. The owner shall be required to pay into the parking fund for the 16 spaces. She referred the PEC to her letter explaining the staff position on the parking issue dated July 10th 1989 to Jay Peterson. Kristan stated that the proposal was in compliance with the Purpose Section of Commercial Core II and went on to cover the criteria effecting the compliance with Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. In-keeping with the height and massing criteria, Kristan said the new entry on the north elevation would be a nice improvement in appearance. Relating to the facades and transparency criteria, Kristan mentioned that the applicants would be expanding the glass area which is a necessary improvement. The proposed landscape plan will comply with the Town of Vail landscape plan and is considered by the staff to be an important aspect of the proposal. Kristan stated that the staff strongly supports the exterior alteration request as the proposal would add many needed improvements to the existing property. The staff is also very supportive of the landscape plan which would be a major upgrade for the site. After completing the exterior alteration request description, Kristan explained that a height variance and a density variance would be 0 0 henry Pratt architects 3941 bighorn road vail, cotorado 81657 (303) 476 -1531 TO: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission r.e.: front and side setback variance at 2586 Davos Trail Applicant is seeking a front and side setback variance in order to construct an attached single car garage and deck extension. Desired setback at front varies from approximately 18'-6" (existing) to 161-0" at the northwest corner of the proposed garage. The deck addition would extend an additional 9" into this setback. The desired side setback also varies, from approximately 12'-6" to 8'-3" for the garage. The deck extension would reduce the setback to no less than 5'-0". The proposed garage addition would have no impact on light, air, population, etc. It is unlikely that parking on the premisis would be affected due to the need for access to the garage. The proposed garage and deck addition would not affect the adjoining property due to the orientation of the house and the existing landscaping. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Linda Aylesworth, is proposing to construct a garage addition onto her residence located at 2586 Davos Trail. No garage currently exists. The garage addition would be attached to the south end of the existing residence on the property. The garage addition is approximately 21'x 22' in size, comprising 462 square feet of garage area. The addition would encroach into the south side yard setback approximately four feet. The new garage space adds 527 square feet of additional site coverage to the property. A site plan and building floor plans have been attached for reference. According to Sections 18.13.090 and 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code of theTown of Vail: "Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent of the total site area," and "the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet." The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.13.090 of the Municipal Code to allow the property to exceed the allowable site coverage. The allowable site coverage for Lot 4 is 2,273 square feet (20 %) and the existing site coverage on the property is approximately 2,308 square feet (20.3 %). The garage proposal adds 527 square feet of site coverage. The applicant is requesting a total of 2,835 square feet or (24.9 %) of site coverage. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code to allow the garage addition to encroach up to four feet (4') into the required sideyard setback. Currently, no portion of the applicant's duplex unit encroaches into any of the required setbacks, although the adjoining duplex unit encroaches four feet (4') into the front setback and seven feet (7') into the north, side setback. The encroachment of the adjoining unit into the required setbacks was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1989 as part of a garage addition request. mwNOFYA 11 0 a 111. BACKGRQUND The staff has researched projects where similar site coverage and/or setback variance requests were made. The results of our research are summarized below: At the Lashovitz residence, the applicant was granted site coverage and side setback variances to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved addition was 16'-3" feet by 21'-6" feet, comprising 350 square feet. The site coverage variance permitted 2,733 square feet or 24.9% site coverage. 11M'1FWWP SVFF1M!R7*AW&*P*-J11 At the Campisi Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance of 1.5% (261.4 sq.ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant intended to use the additional site coverage to construct a third enclosed parking space. The PEC denied the variance request finding that no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance existed on the property that would warrant the granting of the variance. In fact, the PEC found that granting an approval of the site coverage variance request would result in a grant of special privilege. 9a644-ce "WU I-51COO Ricci Residence, 2576 Davos Trail ( February. 1995): ­90*" 1;te- At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2-car garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. Dean/Rousch Residence, 2942 Bellflower (July 1293): At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20-foot setback), and a wall height variance. The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Taylor Residence, 2409 Chamonix Road (May 1993): At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. The allowed site coverage on this lot was 20%. The applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the average slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two-car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward site coverage. Mumma Residence, 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (February 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% average slope. The 1% N 0 0 overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. 101 =M - IF=- &'M# Mr.' At the Small residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8-inches by 22 feet 3-inches (504 square feet). A site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. A site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. III. ZONING STATISTICS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 11,365 square feet / 0260 acres. Kmaspall Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: 20' 15715' 15' 20% or 2,273 sq. ft. zaz��,, � Parking: 4 spaces required (2/D.U.) IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Front: 16' Sides: Rear: 33' 24.9% or 2,835 sq. ft. 011-Wronfflu-*�$ � 4 (3 enclosed spaces) (2/D.U.) Upon review of Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance and approval of the requested side setback variance. Staff's recommendations are based on the following factors: 3 a 0 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coverage: Staff acknowledges that the proposed addition will increase the bulk and mass of the existing structure. The additional mass and bulk associated with this proposal will not negatively impact the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's property. Staff believes there is a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance which would justify the granting of a site coverage variance. Staff believes the location of the existing structure, and specifically, the location and configuration of the front entrance to the residence prohibits the applicant from constructing a garage and still complying with the site coverage requirement. Staff further believes that the granting of the requested site coverage variance would not result in a grant of special privilege. RM•.M The staff believes that the four foot encroachment into the side setback will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the area. Approximately 24 square feet of garage area will be in the setback. Staff believes that the existing structure dictates a reasonable location for the garage. Staff feels the existing structure could be considered a physical hardship to development on the property. A letter from the adjacent property owner has been attached for reference. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. [� V4 Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when associated with the construction of enclosed parking, where none exists. Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of the site and the surrounding area as a whole. In this case, the applicant will be creating two interior parking spaces with the construction of the new two- car garage. In the past, the staff has required that each variance request be for the minimum amount of additional site coverage necessary in order to attain the desires of the applicant. Typically, when staff has supported site coverage variances for garages, the size of each parking space has been between 200-275 square feet. With this request, the applicant is proposing that the garage addition comprise 510 square feet of floor area and an additional 527 square feet of site coverage. Staff believes that 510 square feet is reasonable for two, enclosed parking spaces. 4 a 0 Setback: According to the plans submitted, approximately 24 square feet of building area is proposed in the side setback. Staff believes that the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary from the setback regulations to achieve the desired goal of accommodating a two-car garage on the property. Following previous discussions with staff, the applicant's representative has reduced the overall width of the garage to minimize the amount of site coverage relief and the amount of building encroachment into the side setback. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Site Coverage: Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on any of the above-referenced criteria. Setback: Staff believes the requested side setback variance will not have any negative impacts on any of the above-referenced criteria. HMO A IVJI(61M;W 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 5 0 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and the setback variance subject to the following findings: 1 That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the site coverage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the setback variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 2 AIIA 4T 0 7; SEP S 7 2, 1997 FILE Copy 2. A request for variances from Sections 18.12.060 (Setbacks), and 18.12.110 (Site Coverage), to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented by Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Henry Pratt, the architect representing the owner, agreed with the staff recommendation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland suggested to staff, to note on the staff memo that the Campisi lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. He said that the applicant's request was consistent with others that have been approved in the past and so he was in favor of it, as it was not a special privilege. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had only the comment that this was a good addition. Gene Uselton observed that the north posts did not make any contact with the roof. Henry Pratt said it would stand up. John Schofield had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said that this was the only location on the lot for this addition to go and so, he was in favor of the request. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 2 &-A a a o� The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Henry Pratt requested a couple of minutes from the PEC, to discuss the wall between the passageway and garage. He said because of the quirks of the GRFA rules, the wall could only be 3' high and asked it the applicant should come back for a density variance. He explained that it was open on three sides and so, it did not count as GRFA. Henry explained that the applicant wanted to heat the garage. Galen Aasland asked how many square feet were in the garage. George Ruther said it was 422 sq. ft. and it would be an additional 90 sq. ft, if it were enclosed. Henry Pratt said the addition would count as GRFA. Galen Aasland asked about walking through the garage to the entrance through an enclosed walkway. George Ruther said guests would have to walk through the garage to get to the house. Galen Aasland said a walkway over the top would not require a density variance. George Ruther said it would have to go through the garage to get to the front door and could not be a full height wall. Henry Pratt said the wall between the passageway and the garage could only be 3' in height. Galen Aasland suggested being creative with the rules. Henry Pratt said the applicant would have to come in for a variance. Gene Uselton remembered applicants in the Potato Patch area requesting a similar design and that the PEC turned them down. George Ruther said that Gene was correct. John Schofield said he would look favorably on this request. Greg Amsden stated he wanted to see some history presented from staff. Galen Aasland also wanted to see some history. Ann Bishop wanted to see some history, but said if this request was logical, the PEC should be flexible. Diane Golden stated that it was common sense to enclose the garage. Greg Moffet said he would have to be sold hard that this was not a special privilege. John Schofield asked about the possibility of detaching the garage. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1447 3 • George Ruther said, that because this lot was less than 15,000 sq. ft. and there were two dwelling units on it, it was non-confirming and a unit would have to be deed-restricted as employee housing for a density variance. Lauren Waterton stated, for the record, that the Zoning Analysis from item #1 on the agenda was correct, but the numbers wouldn't match the 60140 split in the GRFA, because the secondary unit was already greater than 40%. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 19 Jr. � `t.541g 'OCI`d"ZIOiO7'iit11� �'ei'',: — ►''t .LSI r3NOH75 Svc a 9 + �I ba ., ' � , + t pp � pp ■j■j r his I 77 ---------- --------- A .;mn r� + t � 1 ! r; fr f r r +` 1 z d Jb �- L Fof Lw-j €I` --A ------- X- op"a► ON it 4 r> r r < >n Ksom j3 AYLE51NORTH 6ARAC7E APPITION pall El IE: : LOT 4, BLK "E", VAIL : A5 SCHONE, 15T aft VA I L, COLORA00. Aft a IS I '=INOH'-*)G SVC I I VA %a. >-IG '17 101 - A]41g, HINOMG�F1,JV 6� 414agr', ZIP Ohlit F 77 411t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WJj �0 as II II Aft a IS I '=INOH'-*)G SVC I I VA %a. >-IG '17 101 - A]41g, HINOMG�F1,JV 6� 414agr', ZIP Ohlit F 77 411t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WJj �0 as ocyw - ho IGI'ZNOH'DS SVcn 11 NOLLICOV 2;,9"V,9 H.LNoMGa7,,0V 14 I'Al ,I - - --Li --l-i Ll p lit i R1111 11 If lilt iu; q) R m r n 1> >; -Z r ll� L x------------- A`rLE5lNORTH &ARA6E ADDITION sE; LOT 4, 5LK "E", VAIL DA5 5CHONE, 15T \/AIL,rOLORADO. 61657. E 1. 0 LG91,e .0(=*-2io-1o�:>'-11v^ 1L51 '2NOW:>G SIVC "fl V^ '.S. N*7!2't, 10-1 NOUIC43V 219VNV9 H.LNOMG2-1,,kV fit t U! ot, I lot ------------ x < n 1 rn rn I a� 'z �I II Jill D i ------------------------ ai 3� I L_ I� �—L - -- Ii all C III �1 �A A� AYLESAORTH GARAGE ADDITION LOT 4, BLK "E ", VAIL DAS SCHONE, IST [El 11 Ill 11 11 1 VAIL, COLORADO. 8165'1. E0 August 15, 1997 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81658 To whom it may concern: X It has come to my attention that my next door neighbors, William and Linda Aylesworth, at 2586 Davos Trail, West side, wish to build a two car garage on their property. This letter is to inform the Town of Vail that I have no objection to this construction. In fact, it will help alleviate the crowded and unsightly parking conditions that now exist. Sincerely, Mr. Robert L. Davis 2596 Davos Trail Davos Trail West Vail, CO �i August 11, 1997 El Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: a portion of Lot 4, Block E, Resubdivision of Vail Des Shone, Rling no 1 Setback and site coverage variance requests for garage addition Dear POD and Comm Dev Staff, Please find attached an application for variances required to add a two car garage at 2586 Davos Trail- west half. Zoning is Primary/ Secondary although the house originally constructed was a mirror image duplex. 1. Side Setback- reduce from 15 feet as specified in 18.12.060 to approximately 10' at the building corner. The roof overhang extends approximately another 1'-6" deeper into the setback. 2. Site Coverage- existing duplex and one car garage at east half meet or slightly exceed the 20% site coverage allowance as specified in 18.12.110. The lot size is 11,365 SF according to the surveyor. • A one car garage addition was approved and constructed for the other half of the duplex 8 years ago, so the addition of a garage is consistent with the vicinity. Since mirror-image duplexes are not allowed, this request is for a two car garage. Also, due to existing mature trees, this garage will be detached from the house to permit access to the front door without an extensive elevated walkway that would have to go way out of the way to avoid several existing trees. • The requested degree of relief is the minimal possible. The garage, at 440 SF of GRFA, is significantly less than the 600 SF allowed. The encroachment into the side setback is triangular in shape and therefore tapers to zero as the lot line moves southward. Two existing trees severely limit alternative locations. The site is significantly less than 15,000 SF in size and so a site coverage variance is unavoidable. The detaching of the garage is also an example of the minimum relief sought- putting the covered access walkway on the outside of the garage (as was done for the east half) would result in the walk having to go way around the spruce tree in the rear of the garage and would add to site coverage. And finally, to minimize the risk to these trees, the garage structure will be supported by piers instead of foundation walls (this is how the east half garage was framed). • The effect of light, air, etc. is negligible since this structure is nestled well down from the street and due to the extremely low roof profile of the existing and proposed structures. • The effect on traffic and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is significant since the addition will get two cars out of sight in a driveway that is often full of cars. 0 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Staff Interpretations Notebook FROM: Lauren Waterton DATE: May 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Improvements to Primary/Secondary zoned properties that do not conform with density controls A question has come up regarding the improvements that can be done on a lot that does not meet the density controls for the applicable zone district. There are a number of Primary/Secondary zoned lots containing two dwelling units that are less than 15,000 square feet. These lots are non-conforming regarding density, even though the property may not have exceeded the GRFA allowance. Section 18.64.050 Non-conforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements of the zoning ordinance, states: "Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title 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 limiations: B. 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". - Staff has concluded that the following improvements may be done to a non-conforming building, without increasing its non-conformity: 1. After reviewing the definition of GRFA, staff has concluded that garages do not count as GRFA (up to 300 square feet per space with a maximum of two spaces per unit), and therefore, can be added to a non-conforming structure without increasing the non- conformity. Garage areas over 300 square feet per space, or 600 square feet per unit, are included as GRFA, and cannot be allowed without a density variance. 2. Existing GRFA within the building may be reallocated between the two units. For example, if a building has two identical units, an owner could remodel the Interior, creating one larger and one smaller unit, assuming that the secondary unit does not exceed 40 %- of-the total GRFA. 3. Up to 50% of the GRFA may be removed before the building is considered to be a "demo/rebuild". A "demo/rebuild" will no A maintain its legal non-conforming status'. OEM 4. Site alterations, exterior fascade changes and dormer additions that do not add any GRFA. J, If a property owner chooses to add available GRFA to an existing non - conforming site, the owner must pursue one of the following options: 1. The owner must apply for and receive a density variance. The variance is necessary because the property exceeds the number of dwelling units. OR: 2. The owner must deed restrict one of the units as a Type I Employee Housing Unit. Deed restricting one unit would bring the property into conforming status with regard to density. If a property has used all available GRFA and the owner wishes to utilize the 250 Ordinance, staff has determine that any existing dwelling unit is eligible for the 250, regardless of its comformance with density standards. All units on a non-conforming lot may apply for an additional 250 square feet (provided the criteria for the 250 are met) without pursuing either option listed above. The property will, however, have to comply with the 250 Ordinance requirement for site development improvements, such as paving driveways, undergrounding overhead utilities, replacing plywood siding, etc. 'I- �_'= : Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Staff Interpretations Notebook. FROM: Allison Ochs, Community Development Department DATE: June 23, 2000 SUBJECT: Non - conforming Structures and Site Improvements and the "250 Ordinance" Nonconforming Structures and Site Improvements Chapter 18: NONCONFORMING SITES, USES, STRUCTURES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS was adopted in 1973 with specific limitations on expanding properties which are non - conforming with regards to density. According to chapter 12 -18 -5B 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. The Zoning Code considers density as both dwelling units /acre and gross residential floor area. The "250 Ordinance" The 250 Ordinance was originally adopted in 1997, and modified in 1998. The "250 Ordinance" allows dwelling units which were constructed prior to 1995 and have used or exceeded all of the allowable GRFA on the lot to construct an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA. The "250 Ordinance" was intended to encourage the upgrading of older units within the Town. According to Chapter 12 -15 -5 ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): Applicability: ... No application 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 allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. "250 Ordinance" Eligiblity for Nonconforming Structures Many lots within the Town are nonconforming with regards to "dwelling units per acre" but have remaining allowable GRFA. According to the Nonconforming Chapter, these dwelling units are unable to add any GRFA. As a result, they have essentially utilized all of their "allowable" GRFA and are therefore eligible for the 250 GRFA bonus. These units must meet all the requirements of Chapter 12 -15 -5 ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA. Bill Gibson From: Mac McEachron <macen @vail.net> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20114:11 PM To: Bill Gibson Subject: hi Thank you and your associates for taking time to talk with me re: 2586 Davos Trail. We think it's great that our neighbors want to add a carport. We have no objection to the concept, however, we strongly object to the architecture as planned. First, please do not allow them to raise the port so far above house grade level. Their plan to raise it so high will be just plain ugly ... like attaching a small silo to a farm house!. Second, if you insist on letting them go ahead with the bad taste high level structure, will you please not allow them to take down the two nice pine trees which provide a tasteful barrier from us and the rest of the neighbors who live near there and those who walk down the block. The house is not very attractive as it stands and the trees will provide some barrier. Again, we are not opposed to the addition, just the awkward and unbalanced architecture of the building, and please save the trees! Thank you for listening and keep in touch. We will be out of town next week and when will be the next meeting the second week in Sept.? Is Brian Gillett still on the planning commission? Steve and Mary Jane McEachron 2585 Davos Trail 970/479 -7360 1 TOWN OF VAIL ` Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 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 SUMMARY 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 (GRFA) on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed amendments based upon the findings noted in Section VI of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At the Planning and Environmental Commission's request (in response to an appeal application submitted by Kathy Langenwalter) the proposed amendments allow both the GRFA basement deduction and garage deduction to be applied to the entirety of the lowest level of a residential building. Currently, the GRFA basement deduction is only applied to those portions of the lowest level not deducted as a garage. Staff recommends this proposed calculation methodology be applied not only to garages on the lowest level; but also crawlspaces, employee housing units, and other similar floor area uses excluded from the calculation of GRFA. Staff recommends the following amendment to Section 12- 15- 3 -A -1, Vail Town Code: and 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 each be deducted from the total square footage. (6) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are 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. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any craw /space or attic. While the Planning and Environmental Commission requested that this amendment be applied to the lower density residential districts addressed in the Langenwalter appeal (Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two - Family, and Two - Family Primary/Secondary Districts); Staff recommends these amendments also be applied to the higher density (Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, High Density Multiple Family, and Housing Districts) that utilize the same GRFA calculation methodologies. Staff recommends these same amendments be applied to Section 12- 15- 3 -B -1, Vail Town Code: and 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 each be deducted from the total square footage. (7) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are 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 Town of Vail Page 2 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. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any craw /space or attic. III. 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 ". 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 3 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 ". 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 %). 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 Town of Vail Page 4 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, the Town Council determined 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. 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, Town of Vail Page 5 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. 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 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). 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. 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. On June 13, 2011 the Planning and Environmental Commission heard an application by Kathy Langenwalter appealing Staff's interpretation of the GRFA regulations related to the calculation of the lowest level of a structure that includes a garage. Ms. Langenwalter identified the GRFA calculation discrepancies between homes, with identical bulk and mass, created by constructing a garage on the lowest level of a home. Currently, homes with a garage, employee housing units, or other similar deducted use receive a small GRFA basement deduction than homes that have these same uses on upper levels of the building. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that Staff initiate an application to amend the Vail Town Code to create equity between properties by applying the basement deduction to the entire lower level of a home, rather than only applying the basement deduction to those portions of the lowest level not otherwise deducted (garages, EHU's, etc.) IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12 -2: Definitions Town of Vail Page 6 FLOOR AREA, GROSS RESIDENTIAL (GRFA). See Chapter 15 of this title for GRFA definitions, regulations, and requirements for GRFA calculations. Chapter 12 -1: Title, Purpose, Applicability (in part) 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. B. Specific. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Chapter 12 -15: Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Town of Vail Page 7 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) 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 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. (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. Town of Vail Page 8 (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. (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. Town of Vail Page 9 (8) Roofed Or Covered Decks, Etc.. 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 (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 (8) (approximately 32 square feet). Since the window would protrude no more than eighteen inches (18'), the Town of Vail Page 10 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. V. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Town of Vail Zoning Code regulations; and Staff believes the prescribe regulations amendment continues to maintain the purpose of the existing GRFA regulations outlined in Section 12 -15 -1, Vail Town Code: "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. " Staff also believes the proposed regulation amendment continues to maintain the general Zoning Regulation purposes of "promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town'; "to conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values ", "to encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses ", and "to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." Staff believes the proposed regulation amendment continues to maintain the Planning and Environmental Commission's and Town Council's stated 2004 GRFA amendment purposes: • "GRFA reforms should be simpler to understand, implement, and enforce. • GRFA reforms should be equitable. • GRFA reforms should address related Town zoning regulations. • GRFA reforms should not negatively impact property sales or values. • Government should not regulate the interior use of homes. • GRFA reforms should improve compliance with building and fire codes. • GRFA reforms should not dramatically increase development potential." Town of Vail Page 11 The proposed regulations will result in an increase in the allowable development potential for existing houses with garages, employee housing units, and other similarly deducted uses on the lowest level of a residential structure. However, these amendments will only increase allowable development potential to the same degree currently afforded to other properties in the same zone district that have garages, employee housing units, etc. on the upper levels of the structure. 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 As identified in the criterion above, Staff believes the prescribe regulations amendment retains the intent, goals, and objectives of the existing regulation and furthers the general and specific purposes of creating consistency and equity with the application of the GRFA regulations. The proposed regulations will result in an increase in the allowable development potential for existing houses with garages, employee housing units, and other similarly deducted uses on the lowest level of a residential structure. However, this increase will create equity with properties in the same zone district that have not constructed garages, employee housing units, etc. on the lowest level. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed prescribed regulations amendment complies with this criterion. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The policy of granting GRFA basement deductions was originally adopted in 2004. Several alternative methods of calculating a basement deduction were considered, including an "all or nothing" and "proportional" methodologies. In 2004 the Vail Town Council chose to adopt a proportional basement deduction. The Town Council chose the more conservative approach of not allowing multiple GRFA deductions to be applied to areas of the lowest level. While this approach may be less equitable, it results in less building bulk and mass. This policy has not been re- evaluated by the Town Council or Planning and Environmental Commission since its initial adoption. Earlier this year Kathy Langenwalter appealed Staff's interpretation of the Town Code implementing the current basement deduction calculation method. The Planning and Environmental Commission upheld Staff's interpretation, but acknowledged the inequities of the current policy identified by Ms. Langenwalter's appeal. The appeal identified the inequities associated with only applying the basement GRFA deduction to only those portions of the lowest level not otherwise deducted, rather than the lowest level as a whole. Under the current policy, the presence of a garage on the lowest level of a home creates a difference in the GRFA calculation results for buildings with identical bulk and mass. Town of Vail Page 12 The proposed amendments apply the basement deduction to the entire basement, regardless of how the floor area on that level is utilized. The proposed amendments create equity between property owners within the same zone district. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed prescribed regulations amendments will comply with this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives, and The proposed amendments apply the basement deduction to the entire basement, regardless of how the floor area on that level is utilized. The proposed amendments create equity between property owners within the same zone district. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed prescribed regulations amendments will comply with this criterion. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed prescribed regulations amendments as modified by staff will comply with this criterion. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request to the Vail Town Council; the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, for 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, Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential, Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, High Density Multiple Family, and Housing Districts and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of Staff's September 127 2011 memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. Town of Vail Page 13 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 sign 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. " VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Langenwalter Appeal (in part) B. Community Development Department Letter Dated November 8, 2004 C. Existing and Proposed GRFA Calculation Result Comparison Town of Vail Page 14 Attachment A Appeal of Planning Staff Application of GRFA Exclusions Page 2 of 5 Peel /Langenwalter 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 down hi 11 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 into the hillside. The floor plan and calculations on the ride side of the drawing indicate how 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 15 Appeal of Planning Staff Application of GRFA Exclusions Page 3 of 5 Peel/La ngenwalter 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 wails 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 16 cn .00 N X Q. W 4 LL 0 C 0 V CL n. a ti? � �C Q w �r C rnN C � = O a -, .. aQa i n X 4 L'L � � 1 OLY .1 u 1 Town of Vail Page 17 a 0 L 9L �' O R g su Town of Vail Page 17 LO 6 LO QI t77 f4 Gl. N C O 3 U x LL) d LL. O C O i=1 M U Q CL � N 4 U) C Q C f1] CL ? 4 67(V C CL aa� 8 s Q hfl 1Y� V' a{� V' k Z N 4 Z L G► q� 'V It {� G' n � � x ?c �L Al 4' a 9 Sl Town of Vail Page 18 u _ ill ' it j.LL a{� V' k Z N 4 Z L G► q� 'V It {� G' n � � x ?c �L Al 4' a 9 Sl Town of Vail Page 18 Attachment B TOWN OVAIIJ f L E COPY Deparrnrent 01 Cunrrnrr:u,y Developmen! %5 .Soua6 l iw:; roc Roeld Vaal, Colorrrdo81G5? 9170-4.79-2j'38 I-AX 970-479-2452 rr: unu: u�ai lgar�. coax November 8, 2004 John Schofield 1448 Vail Valley Drive Vail, CO 81657 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 following 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: Setting /l Ncu) ,standard For Departrnew .Services" 46J RF 1,0.rn rArtA Town of Vail Page 19 OVAIML TOWN fleparoneau of Corrnuuxray Develolmaeur -5 Sows, F'romat r Road Val. Golorado 8165/ 970-4.79-2138 1. 'zU• 970.479 -2=x52 u.rriw.urarl nv. com 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 500 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. 'Serring A ;Vew Swndrard For r_omrnu�mty DcvelUpmeut Deparemew Semites' cco RECYCLED PAPER Town of Vail Page 20 EXISTING GRFA CALCULATION RESULTS Each level has 1,000 sq.ft.of total floor area. Basement above grade /below grade ratio is 0.50 deduction (max allowed 1.00) Garage is 500 sq.ft. deduction (max allowed 600 sq.ft.) EHU is 500 sq.ft. deduction (max allowed 550 sq.ft.) Basement Floor Plan 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan Basement Floor Plan (w /ga rage) 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan Basement Floor Plan (w /garage & EHU) 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan Basement 500 (1000 -500) 250 (1000- 500 = 500 -50 %) 0 (1000- 500 -500) 1st Level 500 (1000 -500) 500 (1000 -500) 1000 2nd Level 500 (1000 -500) 1000 1000 Total GRFA 1500 sq.ft. 1750 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft. PROPOSED GRFA CALCULATION RESULTS Each level has 1,000 sq.ft.of total floor area. Basement is 50% below grade (50% of 1000 = 500 sq.ft. deduction) Garage is 500 sq.ft. (max 600 sq.ft. deduction) EHU is 500 sq.ft. (max 550 sq.ft. deduction) Basement Floor Plan 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan /LHU Basement Floor Plan (w /ga rage) 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan Basement Floor Plan (w /garage & EHU) 1st Level Floor Plan 2nd Level Floor Plan Basement 500 (1000 -500) 0 (1000- 500 -500) -500 (1000- 500 - 500 -500) 1st Level 500 (1000 -500) 500 (1000 -500) 1000 2nd Level 500 (1000 -500) 1000 1000 Total GRFA 1500 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: September 26, 2011 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulation of indoor and outdoor ski storage, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110054) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond I. SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to discuss indoor and outdoor ski storage, including ski concierge services, basket storage and commercial ski storage. Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask pertinent questions and provide input on the discussion items outlined in Section V. Further, Staff requests the PEC tables this item to the October 10, 2011 hearing. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Problem Statement Hotels have introduced ski concierge services in close proximity to ski lifts to improve customer service. These ski concierge services often include the temporary outdoor storage of skis and snowboards on rolling racks to facilitate distribution of equipment to guests. Ski concierge services are not contemplated by the Vail Town Code, as this type of service did not exist when the current regulations were adopted. The use has been permitted on the interior as part of accessory lodge, commercial ski storage and retail. As a result, the Town has no underlying policy direction on this subject, and thus, Staff cannot make a determination on how to address this use. Without clear policy direction, interpretations by Staff results in arbitrary rulings, inequities, unfairness or inconsistencies. Goal Improve customer service and the guest experience by providing opportunities for guests to store their ski equipment and /or boots after on- mountain activity, thus enhancing vibrancy in the commercial cores. Council Direction The Vail Town Council has established a goal of improving the guest experience and providing exceptional customer service. In order to achieve this goal, the Vail Town Council has directed Staff to amend the Zoning Regulations with the ultimate objective being to get skis out of guests hands. The ability for guests to walk around without skis and boots would also strengthen the vitality of the commercial cores by increasing the critical mass of people present after on- mountain activities. There are two different aspects to this, with hourly ski valet and overnight ski valet, as well as services for boot storage. III. BACKGROUND On September 16, 1975, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1975, An Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance by Imposing Horizontal Zoning in CCI. The purpose of this ordinance was "...to maintain and preserve the character of the Vail commercial area", "...to continue the balance between the many commercial and residential uses permitted in the Commercial Core 1 District ", and "...to promote a variety of retail shops at the pedestrian level." Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1989 was adopted to amend the Zoning Regulations to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. In 1999, along with the adoption of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Districts, commercial ski storage became a permitted use only on lower levels in order to allow for retail and restaurant uses on the street level. Horizontal zoning was implemented in the commercial core areas in part to allow primarily retail and restaurant on the first floor of Vail Village and Lionshead. These are uses that promote a lively commercial core, and also promote the collection of sales tax. These uses create a certain feel for visitors that give them shopping and eating experiences that lead to a positive visit. The Vail Town Code also limits other profitable uses such as real estate offices to prevent the displacement of these publicly desirable retail and restaurant uses. Commercial ski storage was prohibited in first floor spaces because they do not provide a major sales tax flow, and because of their profitability, they would displace other desirable uses. However, the difference between ski storage and real estate offices is that ski storage provides an amenity to guests that real estate offices do not provide. Ski storage is an essential service in a ski town and thus promotes the guest experience. While limiting them to lower levels had positive intent to meet desired outcomes, the lack of lower level spaces available for use makes ski storage facilities sparse. The lack of storage facilities then drives up the price of this use. Instead of paying a limited amount for a small area to store skis, visitors may spend a large amount of money on storage that they could potentially spend in a retail establishment or restaurant. The lack of ski storage facilities also causes some people to immediately leave the commercial cores because they have to carry their skis and boots or risk theft by leaving them outside. Town of Vail Page 2 When people leave the commercial cores after skiing, they no longer add to the vibrancy of the area and do not contribute to sales tax collection. In 2001, an application was submitted by the Town of Vail, with Council direction, to allow commercial ski storage as a conditional use on the first and second floors of buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts. The application was withdrawn, with Council direction, after the PEC recommended denial of the proposed amendment. Council directed Staff to clarify the definitions of "basement and garden level" and "first floor street level." According to the minutes from the August 28, 2001 Vail Town Council meeting, "the issue was raised last spring by Tom Neyens of Ski Valet, who called the town to express concerns about possible violations by other businesses in Lionshead. Neyens has testified against expansion of ski storage to the first floor. Instead, he has advocated strict enforcement of existing regulations and consistent interpretation of the town code. " In 2009, the Vail Town Council instructed Staff to provide additional information on commercial ski storage. Staff returned to the Vail Town Council on July 6, 2010 with policy options for commercial ski storage. The Vail Town Council stated that commercial ski storage should continue to be a prohibited use on the first floor within Vail Village and Lionshead. Staff was then instructed to meet with ski storage and ski shop business owners to get feedback on this issue. The following comments were received from those interviewed: • On whether commercial ski storage should be permitted on the first floor: • It should be permitted as accessory to retail and skier services • It should not be allowed or viewable on the first floor at all • It should be allowed in marginal spaces • On how the regulations should be amended: • All businesses should be treated fairly, with equal rights to ski storage • The regulations need to be cleared up, to close loopholes and give clear expectations • On what customers want: • Guests want easy access and cheap storage close to the mountain • Guests do not want to walk up and down stairs in ski boots • Guests want to store clothes and shoes during the day, and boots and ski gear at night The Four Season's ski concierge service is located in the Hong Kong Building and was approved by the Town Council on July 21, 2009, as an off -site accessory use to a lodge. All guest -owned skis and guest rentals are stored on site below grade and are placed outside on a ramp in the right -of -way to distribute and collect during the day. A rack and employee are also stationed at the edge of snow to retrieve guest skis at the end of the day. Town of Vail Page 3 The Sebastian opened Base Camp in the Vista Bahn Building below Tap Room. This retail establishment with ski rentals is open to the public and provides basket storage and ski storage to Sebastian guests for their own skis and rentals. Skis owned by Sebastian guests are either tuned overnight at Base Camp or are brought back to the Sebastian for overnight storage due to limitations of commercial ski storage. The Sonnenalp contracts with the Ski Haus and Tommy's Tunes to provide ski rental to guests and storage below grade overnight. Ski equipment is placed under a pop -up tent on private property during the day for guest pickup and drop off. Vail Resorts, via Specialty Sports Vail, operates public storage at Mountain Plaza and Lionshead ski yards. Pop -up tents with signage have been used to temporarily store skis, which are placed below grade overnight. The Arrabelle, being one the only hotels on the ski yard, along with the private Arrabelle Club, provides ski storage for guests, with skis brought to the ski yard upon a guest's arrival to the underground ski lockers. Ski concierge services, as identified above in various forms, may include the following elements: • Individual business location or operation within existing ski shops • Locker rooms for hotel guests or basket storage • Food and beverage components • Outdoor ski storage on rolling racks, ranging from one rack to 12 racks, both on private property and in the right -of -way • Pop -up tents • Signage directing guests to their ski equipment • Employees both inside and outside the business providing services to guests • Equipment movers, such as bicycle -drawn trailers, typically driven or walked through pedestrian areas • Loading & Delivery issues • Overnight ski storage indoors that may or may not block emergency access On August 2, 2011, the Vail Town Council directed Staff to work on adopting regulations to allow ski concierge services and similar businesses to use outdoor space on private property for ski distribution and collection in order to improve the guest experience. Further, the Vail Town Council suggested Staff continue to explore ways to get skis out of guests' hands to enhance customer service. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS ARTICLE 12 -713. COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT 12 -713-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Town of Vail Page 4 1. Retail shops and establishments, including the following: Sporting goods stores. 2. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Commercial ski storage. 6. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subsections Al through A5 of this section, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 7. Lodges. 12 -713-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: 1. Retail stores and establishments, including the following: Sporting goods stores. 3. Lodges. 5. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subsections Al and A2 of this section in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 12 -713-9: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CC1 district: Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12- 713-18: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses, and services permitted by sections 12- 713-2 through 12 -713-5 of this article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. ARTICLE 12 -7H. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU -1) DISTRICT 12 -7H -2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking establishments. Public or private lockers and storage. Retail establishments. Town of Vail Page 5 Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. 12 -7H -3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Lodges. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. 12 -7H -6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead mixed use 1 district: Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple - family uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12- 7H -17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. ARTICLE I. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU -2) DISTRICT 12 -71 -2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: Commercial ski storage. Public or private lockers and storage. Town of Vail Page 6 Retail establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Lodges and accommodation units. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. 12 -71 -3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: Retail stores and establishments. Skier ticketing, ski school and skier services. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Lodges and accommodation units. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -3 -4 of this title 12 -71 -6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead mixed use 2 district: Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory to hotels, lodges, and multiple - family uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12- 71 -17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses and services permitted by zone district, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, the outdoor display of goods, or outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. ARTICLE 12 -8D. SKI BASE /RECREATION (SBR) DISTRICT 12 -8D -2: PERMITTED USES: Town of Vail Page 7 A. Within Main Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge building in the ski base /recreation district: Basket rental. Ski lockers /employee locker rooms. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories. E. Outside Of Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted outside the main base lodge and children's ski school buildings as shown on the approved development plan zoned ski base /recreation district: Indoor and outdoor ski storage. 12 -8D -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Public, private or quasi - public clubs. 12 -8D -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation district: Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. 12 -8D -5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: All offices and retail sales conducted in the ski base /recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for approved special events and food and beverage vending. ARTICLE E. SKI BASE /RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT 12 -8E -2: PERMITTED USES: Ski base oriented uses including the following: Commercial ski storage on the basement or garden level of a building. Retail stores and establishments. Skier and guest services including, but not limited to, uses such as basket rental, lockers, ski repair, ski rental, lift ticket sales, public restrooms, information /activity desk. 12 -8E -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation 2 district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Private and public clubs. 12 -8E -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the ski base /recreation 2 district: Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. Town of Vail Page 8 Skier and guest service employee offices, locker rooms, and meeting rooms. 12 -8E -5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, retail sales, and commercial ski storage conducted in the ski base /recreation 2 (SBR2) district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special community events, outdoor display of goods and outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12- 14 -21: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS: 1. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for the outdoor display of goods by retail establishments. 2. Applicability: Outdoor display of goods shall be permitted by retail establishments in the following zone districts and shall be prohibited in all zone districts not listed: 1. Housing (H) district; 2. Commercial core 1 (CC1) district; 3. Commercial core 2 (CC2) district; 4. Commercial core 3 (CC3) district; 5. Commercial service center (CSC) district; 6. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU -1) district; 7. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU -2) district; 8. Ski base /recreation 2 (SBR2) district. 3. Permit Not Required: Outdoor display on private property, where permitted by the provisions of this title, are not subject to design review. A permit is required to obtain a license to utilize town owned property for outdoor display of goods by retail establishments, per title 8, chapter 7 of this code. 4. Requirements For Outdoor Display: Where permitted, outdoor display shall be subject to the following limitations: 1. Location: The area used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front of the retail establishment displaying the goods. Outdoor display shall be entirely upon the establishment's own property unless the retail establishment is permitted to utilize town owned property, per the requirements in title 8, chapter 7 of this code. 2. Circulation: Outdoor display shall not impede circulation and thus, shall not block or encroach upon the required ingress /egress of doorways, walkways, stairways, and parking or loading /delivery spaces. 3. Street And Sidewalk Width: A minimum street width of twenty two feet (22') shall be maintained in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Sidewalks shall remain a minimum width of six feet (6). Connection of exit discharge to the public way, as required by the adopted building code, shall not be blocked. 4. Public Safety: Outdoor display shall not pose any risks to public safety, shall not block or encroach upon any fire lane, and shall maintain a minimum Town of Vail Page 9 distance to fire hydrants of seven feet (7') to side or rear, and fourteen feet (14') to the front. 5. Aesthetics: Outdoor display shall not negatively impact established view corridors or acknowledged "postcard" images and shall not visually detract from or block storefront or shop window. 6. Outdoor Display Fixtures: Outdoor display fixtures shall be freestanding, temporary in nature, and shall be removed from the exterior location when the business is closed. 7. Height: No part of any outdoor display shall extend more than six feet (6) above existing grade. 8. Signage: Sale signs may be permitted on outdoor displays, as regulated by subsection 11 -6 -3F of this code. No other signage is permitted on or adjacent to outdoor displays that is not otherwise approved by the administrator, subject to the regulations of title 11 of this code. 9. Cardboard Boxes Prohibited: Outdoor display of goods shall not include any cardboard boxes, unless part of individual packaging of goods. 10. Code Compliance: All aspects of the outdoor display shall remain in compliance with this code and the Vail comprehensive plan. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. How is the storage of guest ski equipment currently regulated by the Zoning Regulations? • Commercial ski storage: Commercial Ski Storage is defined in Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions, Enumerated, as follows: "Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and /or clothing used in skiing related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage." Commercial ski storage is listed as a type of personal service permitted on the garden or basement level in the Commercial Core 1 District. Commercial ski storage is listed separately from personal services as a permitted use on the garden or basement level in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 Districts. Commercial ski storage is permitted in the basement or garden level of the Ski Base Recreation 2 District. Examples include Sonnenalp and Tommy's Tunes in the basement of the Ski Haus, Double Diamond ski lockers in the basement of Lionshead Center, Vista Bahn Ski Rentals in the basement of the Bridge Street Building, Ski Valet at Concert Hall Plaza) • Indoor and outdoor ski storage is listed as a permitted use outside of the lodge in the Ski Base Recreation District. Also listed as a permitted use in the Ski Base Recreation District is basket rental, which could be deemed as a more limited form of storage for all items but skis. • Determination of similar use to a restaurant: The Vail Town Council determined that a locker room with food service for Cordillera Club members was similar to a restaurant on the second floor at the Vista Bahn Building. Town of Vail Page 10 • Accessory to a lodge: The Vail Town Council determined that ski lockers for hotel guests is an accessory use to a lodge, whether on or off -site. The Four Seasons in the Hong Kong Building is an example of off -site lodge accessory use, while the Arrabelle ski storage in some aspects is considered accessory to the lodge. The Marriot has outdoor on -site ski storage that are considered accessory to the lodge. • Private Club: There are numerous private clubs, including the Vail Mountain Club and Arrabelle Club that offer ski lockers below grade as part of club amenities. • Accessory to Retail/ rental establishments: There are existing businesses in Town that are primarily ski rental and /or ski repair and as an accessory use, offer overnight commercial ski storage. Examples of other types of businesses/ land uses that offer storage include: businesses that rent and tune skis for periods as short as overnight or as long as the ski season with storage provided for the length of the paid services. In this case, businesses advertise as ski storage facilities, but maintain to the Town of Vail that this is incidental to the ski tuning business, such as Ski Valet in Lionshead Center. Other rental businesses provide nightly ski storage for those renting skis, such as Gorsuch and Pepi's. The Sebastian has their own ski shop in the Vista Bahn Building that serves hotel guests and the public, and tunes guest skis each night to provide overnight storage. If skis are not tuned, they are stored at the Sebastian. Most ski rental businesses provide basket storage for no fee to renters. • Skier Services: "Skier and guest services including, but not limited to, uses such as basket rental, lockers..." is permitted on all levels of the Ski Base Recreation 2 District. Skier services is a permitted use on the garden or basement level and first floor street level and a conditional use on the second floor or above in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 Districts. Examples of ski storage as part of skier services includes the Children's Ski School, and ski lockers in the Lionshead ski yard. • Basket rental: Basket rental is permitted as a stand alone use in the SBR and SBR 2 Districts. These districts both have lockers that function as basket rental. In other districts, basket rental is considered accessory to rental businesses for use by rental clients. • Boot Check: Some businesses have boot check to provide guest comfort and protect floor surfaces. An example is Bol in Solaris, which checks ski boots at the door and provides slippers to guests. Staff considers this accessory to the bowling alley and not part of any ski or basket storage. • Location of business activities: In CC1, LMU -1, LMU -2, SBR and SBR -2, there are provisions that require all business activity to occur indoors, with few exceptions. See discussion item #3 for further discussion of indoor vs. outdoor activity. 2. What activity is not regulated by the Zoning Regulations? The following are activities that are not regulated by the Zoning Regulations and /or are not part of this specific ski storage /concierge discussion: Town of Vail Page 11 • Ski concierge services that bring you skis to your home or hotel for fitting then meet you with skis at the ski yard. • Hotel shuttle services • Public unmanned, free ski racks that provide temporary ski storage 3. What activity is occurring that is not clearly regulated in the Vail Town Code? • Ski storage is occurring in approved locations, but the collection and distribution of skis is occurring outside of the business and /or at the ski yard. The regulations for location of business activity state that all business activity must occur indoors; however, operators suggest staging skis outside for easy dissemination and collection of skis is not actual business activity, but rather an essential customer service enhancement to the approved ski storage. • The Four Season's ski concierge service places all ski equipment outside on a ramp in the right -of -way to distribute and collect during the day. A rack and employee are also stationed at the edge of snow to retrieve guest skis at the end of the day. • Sebastian Base Camp in the Vista Bahn Building below Tap Room brings ski equipment outside for guest pick up and drop off. • The Sonnenalp Ski Concierge at the Ski Haus provides ski rental to guests and storage below grade overnight. Ski equipment is placed under a pop -up tent on private property during the day for guest pickup and drop off. • Vail Resorts, via Specialty Sports Vail, operates public storage at Mountain Plaza and Lionshead ski yards. Pop -up tents with signage have been used to temporarily store skis, which are placed below grade overnight. • The Arrabelle, being one of the only hotels on the ski yard, along with the private Arrabelle Club, provides ski storage for guests, with skis brought to the ski yard upon a guest's arrival to the underground ski lockers. 4. Should outdoor staging of skis be permitted in some form within the Town of Vail? There are a number of pros and cons to outdoor staging of skis, including the following: • Pros: • Provide enhanced service to guests by ensuring skis are ready for pickup and drop off outside • Improves the guest experience by limiting guests having to go up and down stairs carrying skis • Cons: • Congests pedestrian and ski yard areas • Can contribute to visual clutter and degradation of the controlled aesthetic qualities of village cores Staff believes the following factors should be considered when contemplating outdoor staging and /or storage of skis: • Applicable zone districts Town of Vail Page 12 • Whether ski equipment should be permitted outside during the daytime, nighttime, or both • Permit requirements • Location on private property and /or in the right -of -way • Relationship to storefront windows • Types of businesses to be permitted to have this outdoor activity • Pop -up tents, fencing and /or barricades • Signage identifying activity and associated businesses • Employee presence for facilitation of distribution and receipt • Standards for rack design 5. If skis must be brought indoors at night, can they be stored on the first floor while the business is closed or must they be stored in a location that already permits commercial ski storage (below grade)? • Town Council said no changes to horizontal zoning in order to protect the vitality of the retail /restaurant mix. • Pros: Storage at night on the first floor might give the ability for more businesses to provide ski storage. • Cons: It could lead to the erosion of retail on the first floor to make room for the skis at night. 6. Should basket storage not associated with ski rentals be permitted as an accessory use to retail businesses? • Staff has determined that the current regulations allow boot and /or clothing storage related to ski rental. However, there is an identified need for boot storage not associated with ski rentals within retail establishments. • Pros: Boot and clothing storage has been identified as a desired guest service. Allowing a portion of retail to provide this service would improve guest services and allow people to linger in the commercial core to shop and eat after skiing. It would also make the regulations more enforceable, as there would be no difference in who could use baskets. • Cons: It could lead to the erosion of retail floor area on the first floor. 7. Should hourly ski storage be permitted outside? • While most of the discussion centers around overnight ski storage, another way to enhance the guest experience is to provide hourly ski storage for people eating or shopping on ski days. • Pros: Hourly ski storage would allow people to walk around and /or eat in restaurants while their skis are securely stored. • Cons: Outdoor ski storage, whether hourly or overnight, can contribute to visual clutter and degradation of the controlled aesthetic qualities of village cores. It could also create congestion in narrower streets. Town of Vail Page 13 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask pertinent questions and provide input on the discussion items outlined in Section V. Further, Staff requests the PEC tables this item to the October 10, 2011 hearing. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Photos of ski concierge services Town of Vail Page 14 .Y f vii " ,i ---- �:� � �,� ,� $� " %� e j�e �:� � �,� ,� am 1.0 bit-- 101 A A OF, I w - 41 s• I -M Ell �Xi Y-= 7 i I�y M. 'OWNOVAIL MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Pam Hopkins Luke Cartin Tyler Schneidman John Rediker Michael Kurz Henry Pratt PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 12, 2011 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS ABSENT 30 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: Tabled to September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 45 minutes 2. 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, Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (WT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110040, PEC110041) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Commissioner Pratt recused himself from the discussion due to his firm's relationship with a potentially affected property owner. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He clarified that today's hearing was to serve as a work session. He highlighted that a letter was sent to all potentially affected owners of property being considered for this new zone district. He highlighted several letters that were received for interested parties. Bill highlighted the policies that were reviewed which sent the Town down the path of the creation of a new zone district. Dominic Mauriello, consultant representing Mr. Galvin, property owner, gave a power point presentation which highlighted past development standards /zoning on the site. He covered three options to address the GRFA concern that his client has with regard to the current resolution. The research presented was in support of a 1.5 GRFA ratio for the new zone district. Page 1 The presentation then discussed the step backs contained within the proposed resolution. A case was made to reduce the step backs on the third floor as that is the floor plate which will contain the primary living spaces. The presentation provided photographic depicts of the height of several buildings in the immediate vicinity. John Dunn, representing Dolph and Barbara Bridgewater, stated that his clients could not be present for the hearing, but asked him to attend and make some comments. Mr. Bridgewater believes that the Town's application reflects the private application of Mr. Galvin without change and represents the ability of the private entity to unfairly influence zoning. He further believes that there are potential negative impacts to iconic views to the east. He expressed concerns that the existing townhomes and condominiumized townhomes are different types of development and shouldn't be included in the same zone district. He is concerned that the new district creates zoning by design review, which doesn't work. Commissioner Kurz stated that he has several concerns regard John Dunn's statements since all development in Vail is regulated by design guidelines and master plans. He noted that the Vail Village Master Plan states that quality redevelopment is encouraged. It is a true statement that the zoning needs to be examined in the redevelopment of parcels on an individual basis and they won't redevelop as a whole. He stated that the PEC previously arrived at an acceptable GRFA of 1.35 while the GRFA recommended by Town Council was 1.25. He supports 1.35 still. Commissioner Hopkins felt that the proposal favored the townhome platted parcels because of the basement deduction being a part of the overall single unit verses the over /under developed properties. She did not favor three foot step backs as proposed by Mauriello Planning Group because three foot balconies are not functional. She also expressed concerns about the roof forms and slopes. She suggested a 4:12 pitch or less for the primary roof and steeper slopes only for dormers and other secondary roof forms. She asked how this proposal prevents the creation of a solid fagade over the extent of the property? She expressed concern that the proposed district creates a first -come first - served situation which causes adjacent properties having to step back from the project constructed first. Dominic Mauriello addressed the comment about over and under units and how they might be able to redevelop. The thought is that the bottom floor might become a basement and ground level unit and the current ground floor unit might become the second and third floors. He noted that some existing townhouse developments what to demo /rebuild their entire complex, instead of only remodeling individual units. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the Mauriello Planning Group proposal to allow a 100% basement deduction for allow units. He did not support creating a new deduction method for one zone district. He added that he agreed with Hopkins regarding the setbacks form the front property line potentially creating problems. He agrees that the existing townhomes are unique and deserve a separate zone district. He is struggling to understand how the over /under and individually platted properties would implement the proposed zoning. He express support for a GRFA ratio of 1.35 as previously recommended by the Commission Commissioner Pierce stated that he was previously in support for a 1.25 GRFA ratio. He feels like the Town hired a trusted consultant in Jeff Winston to help in designing some architectural guidelines. He believes we should move forward with the recommendation of Jeff Winston and the Commission's previous recommendation of a 1.35 GRFA ratio. Commisisoner Kurz recommended that the Commission not schedule more work sessions, but instead make a final decision on this application at its next hearing. Page 2 Commissioner Hopkins again expressed concerned about the recommended roof pitches and that some redevelopment may still need variances if the district is adopted. She studied units 1- 6 of the Vail Townhouse Condominiums and at 1.25 GRFA they would get approximately 300 s.f. per unit, which is an additional room. Commissioner Pierce asked staff to prepare a recommendation to the Town Council containing a 1.35 GRFA ratio and Jeff Winston's recommendation. Commissioner Rediker expressed concern over fully understanding Jeff Winston's recommendations and how the zone district will work for all unit ownership types. Commissioner Kurz agreed with Commissioner Hopkin's concern about roof pitches. Commissioner Pierce noted that these regulations won't fit everyone perfectly, and some variances may still be needed in the future. He also highlighted that the redevelopment of certain existing properties will need to be wholesale demolition. Bill Gibson stated that Staff recognizes that no new regulations could eliminate all future need for variances, but a goal of the proposed district is to eliminate the majority of variances such as side setbacks between attached units. Commissioner Hopkins asked staff to look at roof slopes, the townhouse style guidelines, and deck step backs of 6 to 8 feet. Commissioner Rediker asked why bulk and mass recommendations were in the resolution but not in the ordinance. Bill Gibson explained that the reason was in an effort to keep our zoning code and master plans in a standardized format. 5 minutes 3. 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 September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 4. 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 September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, Crossview, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Page 3 Vail Town Code, to allow for the exchange of the on -site employee housing unit (EHU) requirement in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code; located at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G, /Lot G, Ridge at Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110051) Applicant: Craig B. Cohn and Sharon M. Puczynski Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 6. A request for the review of variances from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a carport within the side setback in excess of the allowable site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail /Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110053) Applicant: William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to September 26, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 7. A request for the review of variances from Section 11 -6 -3A, Business Identification Signs, and Section 11 -6 -3C, Menu Boxes, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11 -10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of a freestanding business identification sign and a freestanding menu box, located at 174 East Gore Creek Drive (Lodge at Vail) /Lots A, B, and C, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110052) Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc, represented by Graham Frank Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Withdrawn 8. Approval of July 25 and August 22, 2011 minutes MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7 -0 -0 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7 -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 September 9, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 4 PUBLIC NOTICE Ad Name: 7037975A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM SePtember26,2 °" m 1:OOp Your account 1022233 TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS /PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado, 81657 - MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT 15 minutes • - - 1. A request bra f -nal r.comm.ndau.0 b the Vail Town Counc-I for a major amendment to Special Developrment District n 1 29, The Valley Phase II PROOF OF PUBLICATION °o�edu e °, Se 110 °o Amendment lo han,e of the on -site employee housing unit e'c LIT U) equi r. m.nt in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Hestnction Exchange Program, Vail STATE OF COLORADO } U (U/ / own ode; located at 1460 Buff hr Greek Road, Unit Lot (U, Grossvi.w at Vail, Phase 3, and set - ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110051) j c c • Appllcant Craig B. Cohn and J ss Sharon M Pucrynski Planner: Rachel Dimond COUNTY OF EAGLE } ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 60 minutes 2. A request forth. review of variances from Sec- tion 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Section 12 -6D -8, Density Gorur01, and Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Iown od..pursuamtocnapt.rl2 -n . vananps. Vail own God., to allow for the construction of a representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper owaa ,gms'hede�tia,- °raieaa�dsit, d,= gross resi age, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schon. Filing 1, and setting forth details in printed, in whole or in part and published in the County Ap,da mto (PEC1100531 illiamR Aylesw°rth, of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation Planner represented by Steve ill Gibson ACTION: therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 45 minutes and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of 3 A request for l recommendation 10 nthe Vail Town Council I. prescribed reRq lation amend- ments bChapter 12 -15, Gross esidernial Floor more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Area, Vail Town Code, pursua n to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, related b the 2 3 7, lation of gross residential floor area on the lowest level of a structure that contains a garage in the publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Hillside Residential, Single Family Residential, Iwo - Family H.sid.ntial, and Iwo - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Districts, and set that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice ling forth details in regard thereto (PEG110043) Applicant town of Vail Planner Bill Gibson and advertisement as requested. ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 60 minutes 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for r cribed regulation amend The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium o Titl.,2. Boning Regulations, Vail Town 7 Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment. Vail Town Code, to amend the regulation of indoor only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home and outdoor ski storage, and setting forth details in regard thereto .(PEC110054) Appllcant town of Vail Rule provision. Planner Rachel Dimond ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes S. A request for a recommendation to the Vail That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Tmwn Council on Prescribed q lation dments c chapuer 12 -6, Resident al Districts, Vail Town Code, p s t to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, b establish a new published in the regular and entire issue of every zone Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)District, and selling forth details in regard thereto, and a number of said daily newspaper for the period of I quest fora recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed amendments b Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub- Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said Vill Vail Village Master Plan pursuant achapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 9/23/2011 and toa"et Vail Village I;ls in re and 1) (Pd setting forth details in regard thereto - EC110040,PEC110041) Applicant Town of Vail that the last publication o said notice was ate 9/23/2011 m Planner Bill Gibson ACTION: table to October 10, 2011 the issue of said newspaper. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Lll U �J �J 5 minutes 6. A req est for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed qqulations amendments b Title 12, Zoning Rege lations and Title 14, Development Standards, Val Town code, In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, pursuant to Section 12 -3- 7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement 10/04/2011 • sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto - (PEG090028) Appllcant town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to October 10, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 6� 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail I own Gou ncil for prescribed regulations cendments, pursuant to Section 11 -3 -3, Pres- ribed Hegulations Amendment, Vail town God., General Manager /Publisher /Editor to Sections 11-7 -15, Public Parking and Loading Signs for Private Property, Vail Town code, and Vail Daily 6, Informational and Directional Si q for Public Parking on Private Property, Vail Town God., and setting forth details in regard thereto. Subscribed and sworn to before me a notary public in and for Appl - Ate 0021) - Town of Vail Planner Bill Gibson the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/04/2011. ACTION: Tablet ° ° "ob.r,0.2 °" MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 8. 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, b allow for the installation of solar panels extending higher than one toot above the buildmq ndgelin., located at 4918 Meadow Drive, Unit A /Lot 16, Block ( , Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEG100046) Appllcant Warren Dean, represented by capitol Solar Energy Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public Planner Rachel Dimond ACTION: WIIHUHAWN Commission Approval of September 12, 2011 minutes My Commission expires• November 1, 2015 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Y 10. Information Update 11. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Hoad. I he public is vited to attend the prol.ct emahon and the sitine 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 he notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Developmern Department Published September 23, 2011, in the Vail Daily. 170379751 Ad Name: 6986608A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Your account 3 hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on September 26, 2011 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: Published September 9, 2011, in the Vail Daily. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, (6986608) 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 9/9/2011 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/9/2011 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 09/16/2011. 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 09/16/2011. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town PROOF OF PUBLICATION Council for prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, pur- suant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulation of indoor and out- STATE OF COLORADO } door ski storage, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110054) Applicant: Town of Vail lss 1 Planner: Rachel Dimond COUNTY OF EAGLE } A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 29, The Valley Phase II, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Proce- I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified dures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the exchange of the on -site employee housing unit (EHU) re- representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper quirement in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13 -5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Re- Pprinted, in whole or in art and published in the Count 1� P y striction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code; lo- cated at 1460 Buffehr Creek Road, Unit G/ Lot G, of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation g g Crossview at Vail, Phase 3, and setting forth de- tails in regard Craig B. Cohn Shat) Applicant: Craig B. Cohn Sharon M. Pucryns- therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and and ki Planner: Rachel Dimond and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of The applications and information about the propos- more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and P g ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice Sign language interpretation is and advertisement as requested. available upon re- quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970- 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published September 9, 2011, in the Vail Daily. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, (6986608) 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 9/9/2011 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/9/2011 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 09/16/2011. 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 09/16/2011. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015