Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-1024 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 24, 2011 1:OOpm ?OWN OF �AII, ' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1. Lodge Promenade- 186 Gore Creek Drive 2. 1107 Vail Valley Drive (GRFA amendments) 3. 1397 Vail Valley Drive (GRFA amendments) 20 minutes 1. 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: 20 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -3A -1c, Height, Business identification signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clearance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110055) Applicant: Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 45 minutes 3. 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 45 minutes 4. 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 5. 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: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110056) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to November 14, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 7. 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 November 14, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 8. 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: Withdrawn Page 2 9. Approval of September 26, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 10. Approval of October 10, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 11. Information Update 12. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published October 21, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 3 TOWN OF NiemoralldLim TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 24, 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 I. 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 VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), revised proposed architectural plans dated October 1, 2011 (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), communication from neighboring property owner Steve McEachron (Attachment F), and the previously proposed plans dated August 12, 2011 presented at the September 26, 2011 public hearing (Attachment G). 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, Town of Vail Page 2 based upon today's interpretations of the GRFA regulations, only one garage deduction 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 facade 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 driveways. Town of Vail Page 3 III. BACKGROUND 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. On September 26, 2011 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on this application. The Commission was generally supportive of granting variances for a new garage addition at the subject property; however, the Commission expressed concerns about the new building height, bulk and mass associated with the proposed garage design. The Commission did not choose to adopt Staff's previously recommended condition of reducing the garage size by 40 square feet. The Commission tabled this item and requested that the applicant explore design alternatives to reduce the perceived height and mass of the proposed garage addition. The applicant has revised the proposed garage design in response to the Planning and Environmental Commission's September 26th comments by reducing the pitch of the garage roof from 4:12 to 2:12 to match the existing house roof. This change in pitch reduces the overall height of the proposed garage addition by three (3) feet. The Town of Vail Page 4 applicant is now proposing that the garage roofing material to be built-up rock to match the existing house instead of asphalt shingles. On October 19, 2011 the Design Review Board reviewed the applicant's associated design review application with the lower roof pitch and built-up rock material. The Design Review Board approved both the applicant's original proposal and the revised roof pitch proposal with the condition that their approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of this variance request. The Design Review Board strongly recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission allow variances for the applicant's previously proposed 4:12 roof pitch garage design, rather than the revised 2:12 roof pitch design. 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 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. urposes: 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. Town of Vail Page 5 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 urpose: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 12-6D-6: Setbacks.- In etbacks: 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. rea: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site.- a. ite: 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 Town of Vail Page 6 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 1 employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type 1 employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing type 1 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 overage:Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. Chapter 12-15: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (in part) 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions.- a. xclusions: 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. Town of Vail Page 7 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. 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 Town of Vail Page 8 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) 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%) 2,972(26%) 6,819(60%) 7,637(67%) 6,895(61%) 7,405(65%) 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. 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. Town of Vail Page 9 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. Staff believes the current proposal has been revised to adjust the roof slopes in order to maintain an appropriate relationship to existing 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 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. 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% Town of Vail Page 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. 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. On September 26, 2011 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on this application. The Commission was generally supportive of granting variances for a new garage addition at the subject property; however, the Commission expressed concerns about the new building height, bulk and mass associated with the proposed garage design. The Commission did not choose to adopt Staff's previously recommended condition of reducing the garage size by 40 square feet. The Commission tabled this item and requested that the applicant explore design alternatives to reduce the perceived height and mass of the proposed garage addition. Town of Vail Page 11 The applicant has revised the proposed garage design in response to the Planning and Environmental Commission's September 26th comments by reducing the pitch of the garage roof from 4:12 to 2:12 to match the existing house roof. This change in pitch reduces the overall height of the proposed garage addition by three (3) feet. The applicant is now proposing that the garage roofing material to be built-up rock to match the existing house instead of asphalt shingles. On October 19, 2011 the Design Review Board reviewed the applicant's associated design review application with the lower roof pitch and built-up rock material. The Design Review Board approved both the applicant's original proposal and the revised roof pitch proposal with the condition that their approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of this variance request. The Design Review Board strongly recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission allow variances for the applicant's previously proposed 4:12 roof pitch garage design, rather than the revised 2:12 roof pitch design. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval 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. Staff's recommendation is based upon the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. 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." 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 memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September Town of Vail Page 12 26 and October 24, 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. Revised Architectural Plans dated October 1, 2011 C. 1989 Nicholls Variance D. 1997 Aylesworth Variance E. Staff Interpretation #31 F. McEachron Email G. Previous Architectural Plans dated August 12, 2011 Town of Vail Page 13 Attachment A F 44. Y e� a g f� Ad r _ •fir .w r �� � •� �a �y `F #q A i 41 J Town of Vail Page 14 Q 0. - N mS\ 9 ,� ,u a a `a s c � n 8 � ° s a � - P � a i� I N n � 05 §,y gpr • tc �no ��6n Ezz / oF�- 5°m bE Z rW] amu' S W o d o L�v"OO�EO o� Y o �- O U W\ r,S�^ �L 3: ///y Uii.Q V z a z dO}a of E o: .. o o�WU sor g=°a 84, ,2 r.' m n � 05 §,y gpr • tc �no ��6n Ezz / sg 98 BZoo / zz I OZ 47 F �J z I ads 2y \ rW] W o d o o� Y o �- O U W\ r,S�^ �L 3: ///y Uii.Q V z sg 98 BZoo / zz I OZ 47 F �J z I ads 2y \ W o g s o� Y o �- O U W\ r,S�^ �L 3: ///y Uii.Q V z a z dO}a of E o: .. o o�WU sor g=°a o goa°�"E3 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. ,art--...__....___, Item No. 3 A request ft5r-si a and front setback ua "antes` aider to cQn truct a garage And decks `_Lot 4, Block E Vai das' Schone First Fi-ling. `- At)oticant: _..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 (71 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 an 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 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. ;c mwNOFYA 11 111. 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 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 / 0.260 acres. Kmauspall Setbacks: Front: Sides: .- 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 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. RMM.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. 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 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 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 SEP S 7; 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 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 60/40 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 r� 7------------------------- ---------- 7 ---------- --------- A .;mn z d Jb �- L Fof €I` l i I I I I a i I a � I r � C f PLIIi► ON it 4 .�- i I� K g I y i I � I r �—�------- Iii I Ksom A Y LE51NORTH 6ARAC7E APPITION pall El IE: a a i4�lt �i LOT 4, BLK "E",VAIL :. A5 SGHONE. 15T aft ''� VAIL, GOLORA00. 8165?. `L59143 '00'v'�O'i00 '"11'dh ,, 'tiE6 ISI '3NOH'�S SVC IIIA ` a. TTS '17 101 �'A]41g, HINOMG�F1,JV 6 II II 11 ,I I I ocyw- rJ ',inn ho 151 '3NOH'DS r Vcn11 14 I' 11} i;d4i & 11 �[ R '�) A`rLE5lNORTH &ARA6E ADDITION sE; LOT 4, SLK "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 n D AYLESAORTH GARAGE ADDITION [El 11 Ill 11 11 1 LOT 4, BLK "E", VAIL DAS SCHONE, IST 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: NONCONFORMI NG 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 O rdinance" allows dwelling units which were constructed prior to 19 95 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 Hi Bill, 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 A I r l � �} I 0 i l� � � t � � I rl 3i $ f I i I I � I � � 1 I � �I r r r � g �� i � I I t f' m � r r � � r l =� f r r r I r I � � I � r r r ! r I r � 3 �� � r r r r+ r� a ��, � � f r f $ 8 { � I r I r r� � l � � t � f f � r � ��; • \ 1 � � f p � � � � f I r r { r r 1 � Y• � � � '� f� � r 4 r I � I t Y I i 1 ' ` f 1 �� �� I r � � l I r I ��� r I � � I rl 1 � r I I I r � ', � I r r � I � r � { � r i � f i � 1 � R r r r � � } � I r r I , E I � �` R; �ti i i r � f r i � r I , '� r� i � � S o f � V + � ` � V c � + I � � f � r 8 � � r / r � 1 I � 1 ` �` r � JI r ' ; I it ��, �' � � I r r r � , � + r � I r � ii �� N I tl ti ars a" r V, , I I L'� r 0' F d yy1 - -- 7 p'- - -Y6 —:fib"- ,m' t rj• Tr Q i O D i 4 14,` ti J q Nil � I Al 1- z0 Ir / r 0 1 _ $ _ ' G N � A 1 1 1 S ia � s 75 ZO I I 2a 3 z ggA f o o a0moo g 9FteF • F a <D> z o o ° _ M N p C m Cy o °zfy X 1"l ❑ 4 14,` ti J q Nil � I Al 1- z0 Ir / r 0 1 _ $ _ ' G N � A 1 1 1 S ia � s 75 ZO I I 2a 3 z ggA TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 24, 2011 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-3A-1 c, Height, Business Identification Signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clearance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110055) Applicant: Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer Planner: Rachel Dimond I. SUMMARY The applicant, Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer, is requesting a variance to allow for an awning with a minimum height clearance of 7'6", which is less than the eight (8) feet minimum clearance required by Section 11 -6 -3A -1c, Height, Business Identification Signs, 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 approval, with a condition, of this application subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer, is proposing to install an awning at Skin by Vail Dermatology that has a minimum height clearance of 7'6". They are requesting a variance from the requirement that awnings have a minimum height clearance of eight (8) feet in order to match all other existing awnings on the facade. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicant's request (Attachment B) have been attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The current regulations requiring a minimum height clearance for awnings were established in 2004 when the Sign Regulations were overhauled. The purpose of the minimum height clearance requirement was to allow room for emergency vehicles and snow removal equipment. Emergency vehicles are blocked from pulling up to the storefronts at the Lodge Promenade by bollards and snow removal equipment is no longer required because of the snowmelt system. Skin by Vail Dermatology's new storefront was reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on September 7, 2011 with the condition that a lower awning be approved should a variance be granted. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 11: SIGN REGULATIONS (in part) 11-1: DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE, AND APPLICABILITY (in part) 11-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General Purpose: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. B. Specific Purpose: These regulations are intended to achieve the following specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS.- A. IGNS: A. Business Identification Signs.- 1. igns:1. Business identification signs in sign district 1 (SD I).- a. ):a. Number. Each business shall be allowed one business identification sign per public entrance. Town of Vail Page 2 b. Area: The allowable area of each business identification sign shall be up to six (6) square feet. At the discretion of the design review board, a business identification sign for a bowling alley or movie theater may be up to fifteen (15) square feet in area, subject to the applicant demonstrating that the sign area is harmonious with the scale and architectural character of the subject business and the building in which it is located. c. Height: Projecting and awning signs shall have a minimum clearance of eight feet (87 above pedestrianways and a minimum clearance of fifteen feet (15) above vehicularways. No part of any business identification sign shall extend more than twenty five feet (25) above existing grade. d. Location: Business identification signs shall be located on the business frontage. e. Type Of Sign: Business identification signs shall not be freestanding. 11-10: VARIANCES AND APPEALS (in part) 11-10-1: Variances A. Purpose: A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Sign District: Zone District: Current Land Use: Standard Number (max): Area (max): Height (min): Location: Type of Sign: 186 Gore Creek Drive Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Sign District 1 Vail Village Filing 1 Commercial Core 1 District Village Master Plan Allowed/Required 1 6 sq.ft. 8 feet On the business frontage Wall, Awning, Projecting Proposed Sign 1 6 sq.ft. of text/logo 7 feet 6 inches On the business frontage Awning VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zoning District North: Mixed Use/Lodge Commercial Core 1 District West: Residential High Density Multiple Family District East: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1 District South: Ski Lodge Ski Base Recreation 2 District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Town of Vail Page 3 The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. Staff finds that special circumstances of the existing building and existing awnings would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the proposed awning sign. The existing building facade has numerous awnings that are at 7'6" and installing a new awning at 8 feet minimum clearance would skew the coordinated and complimentary signage on the facade. Further, the minimum height clearance requirements were created to allow for emergency vehicles and access for snow removal equipment. However, the presence of bollards and snowmelt systems adjacent to the Lodge Promenade make this requirement unnecessary. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. Staff finds that the circumstances were not created by the applicant. The existing conditions of the building, including the presence of awnings lower than eight (8) feet, are what is creating the need to request the variance. Specifically, the second floor balconies are low and as a result, the awnings were lowered to line up across the facade. The Design Review Board recognized this issue publicly at their hearing on September 7, 2011 and suggested that the applicant submit a variance application. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. Staff believes this variance request is consistent with the general purposes of the Town's sign regulations, which are as follows: "I. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the Town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. " Specifically, the variance request is consistent with the purpose to have well designed signed and provide for a beautiful community in that the request will allow the awning to align with all other awnings on the same facade. Town of Vail Page 4 VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of the applicant's review of a variance from Section 11-6-3A-1 c, Height, Business Identification Signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clearance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request with a condition, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the request fora variance from Section 11 -6 -3A -1c, Height, Business Identification Signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clearance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Vail Village 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 conditions: "1. This sign variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for the awning sign. 2. This variance shall be granted to all businesses located on the north fagade at the Lodge Promenade." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the Staff's October 24, 2011 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, the site visit, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. Special circumstances and conditions, unique to the subject site, exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, and sign structures that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. Town of Vail Page 5 2. The applicant did not create the circumstances that have necessitated this variance request. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that granting of this variance is in general harmony with the purposes of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request Town of Vail Page 6 l � y C s U m Q W O J � c CD J o L CL -I< a v m 73 � O b O 1 f r� I w TOWN OFVAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: October 24, 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 applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to establish outdoor ski staging as a land use. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at this hearing, and the criteria in Section V, Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval, with modifications, to the Vail Town Council for the proposed amendments. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The following problem statement, goal and council direction provide a summary of the issues that are being addressed with the proposed regulations amendments: 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 portable 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, interpretations by Staff may result in arbitrary rulings, inequities, unfairness or inconsistencies. Goals • 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. • Create regulations that are equitable, fair, clear and concise and not arbitrary or capricious. • Provide clear expectations that result in a consistent outcome. • Create a streamlined review process. • Create regulations that are enforceable. • Maintain adequate circulation and pedestrian safety in commercial cores and in the ski yard. • New outdoor activity should not negatively impact right-of-way. • Establish regulations that will match outdoor ski staging with the world class mountain resort community appearance of Vail. 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 propose amendments to the Zoning Regulations with the 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. Staff believes the following factors should be considered when contemplating outdoor staging and/or storage of skis: • Applicable zone districts • 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 In response to the Town Council and PEC direction, Staff drafted proposed regulations, which are summarized as follows: Establish "outdoor ski staging" as a conditional use in the CC1, LMU-1, LMU-2, SBR and SBR -2, with use specific criteria to direct the PEC review. Establish regulations for outdoor ski staging signs that allows six (6) square feet of signage subject to design review. Town of Vail Page 2 • Create a definition for basket storage. • Add a reference to the outdoor display of goods regulations where mentioned in the location of business activity regulations. • Clarify regulations on location of business activity to allow outdoor ski staging. The following are proposed prescribed regulations amendments to the Zoning Regulations outlined above (additions are in bold and deletions are in cSt.+rikethre, -nh). TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE.- SECTION ODE: SECTION 11-2-1: DEFINITIONS ENUMERATED.- Outdoor NUMERATED:Outdoor Ski Staging: An outdoor arrangement of skis, snowboards, poles and other similar equipment to facilitate distribution and collection to owners and renters of equipment, located outside of a business that rents and/or stores ski equipment, where skis, snowboards, poles and other similar equipment are stored overnight in an approved commercial ski storage associated land use location. CHAPTER 11-7: OTHER SIGNS.- SECTION IGNS: SECTION 11-7-17: OUTDOOR SKI STAGING SIGNS: A. Description: Outdoor ski staging signs shall be described as any signage associated with or identifying outdoor ski staging activity. B. Applicability: Outdoor ski staging signs shall only be permitted in conjunction with approved outdoor ski staging. C. Number: Subject to design review. D. Location: Outdoor ski staging signs shall be located within approved outdoor ski staging areas, including on racks and associated elements. E. Type: Outdoor ski staging signs may be freestanding, wall, awning. F. Area: No more than six (6) square feet of outdoor ski staging signs shall be permitted. G. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted in association with outdoor ski staging signs. SECTION 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS, ENUMERATED.- Basket NUMERATED: Basket Storage: Storage for clothing, boots, shoes and other accessory skiing items, not including skis, snowboards and poles, in a basket or locker, whether for a fee or for free, and either an individual land use or as an accessory use to a skier services or retail establishment that conducts rental activity Town of Vail Page 3 Commercial Ski Storage: Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) ap449F GleN ging 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. Frontage, Business: The horizontal, linear dimension of any side of an above grade level that fronts a major vehicular or pedestrian way and has its own public entrance for the exclusive use of said business Outdoor Display: A temporary outdoor arrangement of objects, items, or products representative of the merchandise sold or rented by a retail establishment, and further regulated by section 12-14-21 of this title. Outdoor display does not include any outdoor ski staging. Outdoor Ski Staging: An outdoor arrangement of skis, snowboards, poles and other similar equipment, not including boots and clothing, to facilitate distribution and collection to owners and renters of equipment, located outside of a business that rents and/or stores ski equipment, where skis, snowboards, poles and other similar equipment are stored overnight in an approved commercial ski storage associated land use location. ARTICLE 12-61: HOUSING (H) DISTRICT. 12-61-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. - B. Outdoor display Areas: 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. ARTICLE 12-7B: COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CCI) DISTRICT: 12-7B-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL.- B. EVEL: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.- Outdoor itle:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-7B-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL.- B. EVEL: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.- Town itle: Town of Vail Page 4 Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-7B-9: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CCI district.- Basket istrict:Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments that engage in rental activity. 12-7B-18: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations, Exception: All offices, businesses, and services permitted by sections 12-7B-2 through 12-7B-5 of this article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, outdoor ski staging 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. C. Outdoor ski staging: Outdoor ski staging shall comply with all regulations in Section 12-14-22 of this title. ARTICLE 12-7C: COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2) DISTRICT. 12-7C-6: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CC2 district: Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments that engage in rental activity. 12-7C-14: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. ARTICLE 12-7D: COMMERCIAL CORE 3 (CC3) DISTRICT: 12-7D-3: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district: Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments that engage in rental activity. 12-7D-11: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. B. Outdoor Display Areas: 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 Town of Vail Page 5 exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. ARTICLE 12-7E: COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER (CSC) DISTRICT. 12-7E-13: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: B. Outdoor Display: 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. ARTICLE 12-7H: LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT: 12-7H-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL.- B. EVEL: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.- Outdoor itle:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL.- B. EVEL: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.- Outdoor itle:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-7H-6: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead mixed use 1 district.- Basket istrict:Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments and/or skier services that engage in rental activity. 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, outdoor ski staging, 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. Town of Vail Page 6 C. Outdoor ski staging: Outdoor ski staging shall comply with all regulations in Section 12-14-22 of this title. ARTICLE 12-71: LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU-2) DISTRICT: 12-71-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL.- C. EVEL:C. 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.- Outdoor itle:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-71-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL.- C. EVEL:C. 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.- Outdoor itle:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-71-6: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead mixed use 2 district.- Basket istrict:Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments and/or skier services that engage in rental activity. 12-71-17: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. C. Outdoor ski staging shall comply with all regulations in Section 12-14-22 of this title. ARTICLE 12-8D: SKI BASE/RECREATION (SBR) DISTRICT: 12-8D-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- Outdoor SES: Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-8D-5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. Town of Vail Page 7 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, outdoor ski staging and food and beverage vending. ARTICLE 12-8E: SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT. - 12 -8E-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- Outdoor SES:Outdoor ski staging operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges, as further regulated by Section 12-14-22. 12-8E-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the ski base/recreation 2 district: Basket storage operated in conjunction with permitted retail establishments and/or skier services that engage in rental activity. 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, outdoor ski storage 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. Outdoor displays shall comply with Section 12-14-21 of this Code. C. Outdoor ski staging shall comply with all regulations in Section 12-14-22 of this title. CHAPTER 12-16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.- 12-16-7.- ERMITS:12-16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.- The TANDARDS: The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by section 12-16-6 of this chapter. A. Uses And Criteria.- 12-16-7A-17: riteria:12-16-7A-17: OUTDOOR SKI STAGING: a. The extent to which the proposed use meets the supplemental regulations in Section 12-14-22. CHAPTER 12-14: SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS.- 12-14-22: EGULATIONS:12-14-22: OUTDOOR SKI STAGING: A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for the outdoor staging, distribution and collection of ski equipment for the purpose of providing improved customer service and enhanced guest experience while maintaining aesthetic harmony with the mountain setting and the alpine village atmosphere of the Town. Town of Vail Page 8 B. Applicability: Outdoor ski staging may be permitted as an accessory use to retail establishments, skier services, commercial ski storage and lodges that conduct ski equipment rental and/or commercial ski storage activity in the following zone districts, and shall be prohibited in all zone districts not listed: 1. Commercial core 1 (CCI) district 2. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU-1) district 3. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district 4. Ski base/recreation (SBR) district 5. Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district C. Review Required. Outdoor ski staging, where permitted by the provisions of this title, are subject to design review pursuant to Chapter 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code. D. Requirements: Where permitted, outdoor ski staging shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Location: Outdoor ski staging may be located along a business frontage. It may also be located on or directly adjacent to the ski yard. Outdoor ski staging and associated areas for circulation should be entirely within the property boundaries of the establishment unless permitted to utilize public property under an approved license agreement or when given written approval by property owner for outdoor ski staging on or adjacent to a ski yard. Outdoor ski staging shall not impede circulation and shall not block or encroach upon the required ingress/egress of doorways, walkways, stairways, connection of exit discharge to the public way, fire lanes parking or loading/delivery spaces or access to trash receptacles, dumpsters, mailboxes, manholes, water valves, flowerbeds or other landscape areas. Outdoor ski staging shall maintain a minimum distance to fire hydrants of seven feet (7) to side or rear, and fourteen feet (14) to the front. 2. Street and Sidewalk Width: Streets shall maintain a minimum width of twenty-two feet (22) to provide access for emergency vehicles and secondary pedestrian streets and paths that do not require emergency vehicle access shall maintain a minimum width of six feet (6), or the minimum width necessary to provide access for emergency vehicles and circulation for the public, as determined by the Administrator. 3. Aesthetics: Outdoor ski staging racks and associated elements shall not visually detract from or block storefront or shop windows as viewed from the public right-of-way, and shall not create a cluttered look. Outdoor ski staging racks and associated elements shall be Town of Vail Page 9 compatible with existing structures, their surrounding and with Vail's environment. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, materials and colors. The design of outdoor ski staging racks and associated elements shall promote the openness, attractiveness and established character of the resort community. 4. Duration of Use: Outdoor ski staging racks shall be freestanding, temporary in nature, and shall only be permitted in the approved exterior location between the hours of 6 am and 7 pm. Outdoor ski staging is only permitted when Vail Mountain is open for the public ski season. 5. Overnight storage: Racks, associated elements and ski equipment shall be stored overnight in an approved location for commercial ski storage or similar use. Racks, associated elements and ski equipment shall not be stored in the aisles of retail areas. 6. Associated elements: Tents or similar coverings, tables, chairs, podiums and barricades of a temporary nature may be permitted should they meet the other requirements of this section. 7. Height. No part of any outdoor ski staging rack or associated elements, except ski equipment, awnings and tents, shall extend more than six feet (6) above existing grade. 8. Staffing: An employee of the associated business shall be present outside at all approved outdoor ski staging location at all times during outdoor ski staging hours to assist customers in the distribution and collection of ski equipment. 9. Maintenance: All approved racks, signage, tents and fences, including their support structures and related racks, shall be kept in good repair; this includes replacement and repainting when appropriate, and other actions that contribute to attractive outdoor ski staging. All hardware shall be properly painted and finished, as approved. 10. Signage: Signage is subject to the regulations of Section 11-7-17 of this code. 11. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the applicable design review entity that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, all applicable regulations adopted by the Town of Vail, that the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Town of Vail Page 10 Vail Comprehensive Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 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 D istricts, 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 ea ting 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. 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 J my 6, 2010 w ith policy options for commercial ski storage. The Vail Town Council stated that commercial ski storage Town of Vail Page 11 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 accessory use to a lodge. All guest 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 ski rack and employee are also stationed at the edge of the ski yard to greet guests and retrieve their skis. 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. Commercial ski storage and similar activities are regulated in numerous ways, as outlined below: Town of Vail Page 12 • 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 t he 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. • Accessory to a lodge: The Vail Town Council determined that ski lockers for hotel guests are 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. I n 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 t he public, and t unes 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 Town of Vail Page 13 2 District. Skier services is a permitted use on the garden or basement level and first floor street level and a c onditional use on t he 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. These provisions were included in the original adoption of these zone districts, and have been amended over the years to add and subtract types of activity that can occur outside a structure. 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. On September 26, 2011, the Planning and Environmental Commission directed Staff to create outdoor ski staging as a conditional use in districts adjacent to the ski yard. The PEC also directed Staff to allow up to 6 square feet of signage. Commissioners directed Staff not to amend horizontal zoning to allow more basket storage other than accessory to rental businesses. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS (in part).- 12-1-2.- art): 12-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: 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. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, Town of Vail Page 14 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 12-78, COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CCI) DISTRICT 12-78-1, PURPOSE: The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The zoning regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. ARTICLE 12-7H, LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT 12-7H-1, PURPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and Town of Vail Page 15 density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. ARTICLE 12-71, LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU-2) DISTRICT 12-71-1, PURPOSE: The Lionshead mixed use 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, light industrial activities, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 2 district, in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Public amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. ARTICLE 12-8D, SKI BASE/RECREATION (SBR) DISTRICT SECTION 12-8D-1, PURPOSE: The ski base/recreation district is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi -family residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouraged to achieve multi- seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient use of the facilities. ARTICLE 12-8E, SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT SECTION 12-8E-1, PURPOSE: The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the Town of Vail Page 16 operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including, but not limited to, residential, public and semipublic uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the zone district. The ski base/recreation 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the zone district. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the zone district shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the town, development within this district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. V. REVIEW CRITERIA The following are review criteria for prescribed regulations amendments, with Staff response below: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and Staff finds the proposed text amendments further the general purpose of promoting "the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance..its established character as a resort.. community of high quality" by allowing outdoor ski staging and thus improving the guest experience in our resort community. By making outdoor ski staging a conditional use with specific use criteria subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission with specific criteria, outdoor ski staging can be reviewed to further the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations including securing safety, promoting "safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets," "safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town" and to "otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community." Generally, the improved guest services and c oncern for the aesthetics of this use will further the purpose of conserving and maintaining "established community qualities and economic values." The proposed amendments to the Sign Regulations will allow up to six (6) square feet of signage for outdoor ski staging signs. Staff believes this amount of signage may contribute to clutter and thus, diminish community qualities, which is why Staff is recommending that signage be reduced to a maximum of three (3) square feet. Due to the potential for clutter and an unsightly exterior, the proposed regulations for both signs and other outdoor ski staging requirements may diminish established community qualities if the reviewing board is not careful to ensure all community Town of Vail Page 17 goals and q ualities are met with the introduction of each outdoor ski staging operation. Staff finds that outdoor ski staging as a permitted accessory use instead of a conditional use may accomplish the same general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations. The following are pros and cons of outdoor ski staging as a conditional use versus outdoor ski staging as an accessory use that is permitted: The following are pros and cons of outdoor ski staging as a conditional use: Pros: • Additional oversight with Planning and Environmental Commission review • Process provides discretion and flexibility to review applications on an individual basis • Adjacent property owner notification occurs with a conditional use permit review • Additional enforceability with added layer of review Cons: • Extended review timeframe (30+ days) • Increased application fees ($650 PEC, $250 DRB) • Additional Staff resources • The regulations are more flexible to allow review on individual basis, which could reduce predictability and consistency The following are pros and cons of outdoor ski staging as an accessory use: Pros: • Shorter review timeframe (14+ days) • Reduced application fees ($250 DRB) • Reduced Staff resources Cons: • No additional oversight with only design review • No adjacent property owner notification with design review only 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and Staff finds the proposed text amendments further the goals, objectives and policies within the Vail Village Master Plan and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan suggests that "Skiers are spending less time skiing and more time shopping, dining out, and enjoying other off -mountain activities. As a result, the demand for quality retail shopping and a greater diversity of experiences has dramatically increased. All of these are sorely in need of Town of Vail Page 18 improvement in Lionshead. Vail, and specifically Lionshead, will fall behind if the community fails to upgrade the quality of its facilities and correct the existing flaws in its primary commercial nodes." The provision of outdoor ski staging will improve the apres ski guest experience and allow for more time to shop and enjoy off -mountain activities. T he Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Objective 2.3.2 calls for vitality and additional amenities, which outdoor ski staging accomplishes. The provision of outdoor ski staging accomplishes goal #2 of the Vail Village Master Plan, which is "to foster a strong tourist industry.." Objective 2.2 is to "recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents," which outdoor ski storage accomplishes by allowing guests to transition from skiing to other activities. 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 Staff finds that conditions have substantially changed in that a n ew use is being demanded by the public, the ski rental industry and the lodging community. The act of outdoor ski staging occurred last season with no policies or regulations clearly legislating this use. The current regulations are no longer appropriate and the proposed regulations will clarify how to deal with this land use. However, it should be noted that similar activity has occurred inside structures since the inception of Vail Mountain and skis have been distributed and collected without staging outdoors. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff finds the creation of outdoor ski staging as a conditional use with use specific criteria on life safety, circulation, aesthetics and location will provide a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship between outdoor ski staging and other uses within the Town. T he regulations will also further the municipal development objective of providing enhanced infrastructure to improve the guest experience. Allowing outdoor ski staging will also enhance the livelihood of the commercial cores, allowing more people to roam around and shop after skiing. However, it is imperative that measures be taken to diligently review applications for outdoor ski staging in order to ensure that the use will be harmonious with the circulation requirements of the general public. Outdoor ski staging, if permitted in the right-of-way, may not be consistent with the municipal development objective to use the right-of-way for public uses. T he purpose of right-of-way is to have public property for uses such as circulation, snow storage, landscaping, drainage and public events. However, the right-of-way has been semi -privatized where adjacent to private structures. However, in a mixed-use environment, it may be detrimental to the Town's goals to allow right-of-way for Town of Vail Page 19 private use, specifically for outdoor ski storage. Municipal development objectives have historically allowed location of business activity to occur outdoors, as the location of business activity regulations were enacted when most zone districts were established in 1973. Through the years, the location of business activity regulations have added and eliminated the types of activity that could occur outside. The proposed regulations would allow a new type of use outside the business, consistent with the changing regulations of location of business activity that have responded to uses that are compatible on the exterior of the business. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, with modifications, 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 ou tdoor ski storage, and s etting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and E nvironmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval 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. " Should the Planning and E nvironmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with modifications for this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following modifications: "1. The proposed regulations shall be amended to establish outdoor ski staging as an accessory use only, not a conditional use. 2. The proposed regulations shall be amended to allow only three (3) square feet of signage. " Should the Planning and E nvironmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval for this request, the Community Development Department Town of Vail Page 20 recommends the Commission makes the following findings based upon a review of Section V of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- The inds: 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. The amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. 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. " Town of Vail Page 21 TOWN OF VAIL; Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 24, 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- 15-3-6-1, 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.) At its September 26, 2011 public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission tabled this item and requested that Staff provide test case examples of the implementation of the proposed text amendments. Staff has attached floor plans and GRFA calculations for two test case houses (Attachment E). Additionally, Kathy Langenwalter has provided a summary of the GRFA calculations and deductions for the Commission's review (Attachment D). The attached summary helps clarify that garages and basements are separate GRFA deductions and the two Town of Vail Page 6 deductions are not combined when a garage is located on the lowest level of a structure. All garage deductions, regardless on which level of the building it is located, are capped at 300 sq. ft. of actual garage floor area per parking space. The proportional basement calculation is not blended with the garage deduction to allow a garage deduction greater than 300 sq. ft. of constructed garage floor area per parking space. Attached are floor plans and elevations of two case study homes (Attachment E). These two properties were selected because of their sloping, but not steep, grades. Both homes were built after the adoption of the 2004 GRFA amendments. Additionally, both properties were designed with the garages on the lowest level of the structure by owner choice and not by necessity of topography. The Leever Residence at 1397 Vail Valley Drive was designed in 2004. As reflected in the GRFA analysis on the attached plans, the lower and upper level floor plans were revised and increased in size after the Town's adoption of the 2004 GRFA amendments. The lowest level of this structure includes a three car garage and the upper floor includes vaulted areas. This case study home illustrates the fundamental truth that gross residential floor area (GRFA) is not the same as actual, physically constructed floor area. By today's regulations the vaulted volumes above the upper level floor with a floor -to -ceiling height of >16 feet count as an additional floor of GRFA, even though there is no physically constructed floor associated with these volumes. The upper level of this house has 1,001 sq. ft. of actual, physically constructed floor area; but calculates as 1,353 sq. ft. of GRFA (a "plus" number). The Planning and Environmental Commission should consider this GRFA calculation outcome when evaluating the outcomes of the proposed text amendments. If today one level of a house can have more GRFA than the actual, physical floor area; why can't one level of a house be less GRFA (zero or even a "minus" number) than the actual, physical floor area? Under today's regulations, the outcomes of the GRFA calculations are affected by where in the house the garage is located. If the garage is located on the lowest (basement) level, the house counts as more GRFA than if that same garage was located on any upper level: A. The following are the GRFA calculations for the Leever's house based upon today's regulations: Lower Level 3,868 - 855 garage = 3,013 3,013 - 663 basement (22% below grade) = 2,350 sq.ft. GRFA Living Level 3,343 sq.ft. GRFA Town of Vail Page 7 Upper Level 1,001 + 352 vaulted area = 1,353 sq.ft. GRFA Total 7,046 sq.ft. GRFA (8,212 sq.ft. actual, physical floor area) B. The following are the GRFA calculations for this house if the Leever's chose to move their garage use from the basement to the main level. The floor plan configurations and actual floor areas remain unchanged, and the building bulk and mass is unchanged (the basement garage doors are simply converted to walls and some living level windows are converted to garage doors). Lower Level 3,868 - 851 basement (22% below grade) = 3,017 sq.ft. GRFA Living Level 3,343 - 855 garage = 2,488 sq.ft. GRFA Upper Level 1,001 + 352 vaulted area = 1,353 sq.ft. GRFA Total 6,858 sq.ft. GRFA (8,212 sq.ft. actual, physical floor area) By moving the garage use from the basement to the main level, this house becomes 188 sq.ft. of GRFA smaller; even though the actual floor area remains unchanged, the building bulk and mass remains unchanged, and the house didn't physically become smaller. The proposed amendments to the GRFA regulations are intended to eliminate this variation in GRFA calculation outcomes. By applying the basement deduction to the entire lowest level, regardless of how the floor area is used, instead of only applying the basement deduction to only those areas of the basement not already deducted as a garage; the GRFA calculations are constant. The following demonstrates that the proposed amendments result in the same GRFA outcome when the garage is located in the basement as when the garage is located on the living level above (6,858 sq.ft. of GRFA). C. The following are the GRFA calculations for the Leever's existing house based upon the proposed regulations: Lower Level 3,868 - 851 basement (22% below grade) — 855 garage = 3,017 sq.ft. GRFA Town of Vail Page 8 Living Level 3,343 = 2,488 sq.ft. GRFA Upper Level 1,001 + 352 vaulted area = 1,353 sq.ft. GRFA Total 6,858 sq.ft. GRFA (8,212 sq.ft. actual, physical floor area) Another case study example is the Giordano Residence located at 1107/1109 Vail Valley Drive, which was constructed in 2007. Similar to the Leever Residence, this house has a garage located on the lowest level of the house. The Giordano Residence also has an Employee Housing Unit (EHU) and an EHU garage on the lowest level of the structure. Both the EHU and its associated garage are eligible for GRFA deductions, with caps, similar to a typical garage. As illustrated below, this basement EHU has the same effects on the GRFA calculation outcomes as the Leever's basement garage under today's regulations. If the EHU is located on the lowest (basement) level, the house counts as more GRFA than if that same EHU was located on any upper level: A. The following are the GRFA calculations for the Giordano's house based upon today's regulations: Lower Level 3,083 -600 garage -401 EHU -246 EHU garage = 1,836 1,836 -1,102 basement (60% below grade) = 734 sq.ft. GRFA Living Level 2,853 sq.ft. GRFA Upper Level 2,971 sq.ft. GRFA Total 6,558 sq.ft. GRFA (8,907 sq.ft. actual, physical floor area) B. The following are the GRFA calculations for this house if the Giordano's chose to move their basement garage and EHU garage to the main level, and then move the basement EHU to the upper level of the existing house. The floor plan configurations and actual floor areas remain unchanged, and the building bulk and mass is unchanged (the basement garage doors are simply converted to walls and some main level windows are converted to garage doors). Lower Level 3,083 -1,850 basement (60% below grade) = 1,233 sq.ft. GRFA Town of Vail Page 9 Living Level 2,853 -600 garage -246 EHU garage = 2,007 sq.ft. GRFA Upper Level 2,971 -401 EHU = 2,570 sq.ft. GRFA Total 5,810 sq.ft. GRFA (8,907 sq.ft. actual, physical floor area) By moving the garage, EHU, and EHU garage uses from the basement to the other levels, this house becomes 748 sq.ft. of GRFA smaller; even though the actual floor area remains unchanged, the building bulk and mass remains unchanged, and the house didn't physically become smaller. Again, the proposed amendments to the GRFA regulations are intended to eliminate these variations in the GRFA calculations. By applying the basement deduction to the entire lowest level, regardless of how the floor area is used, instead of applying the basement deduction to only those areas of the basement not already deducted as a garage, EHU or EHU garage; the GRFA calculation results are constant. The following demonstrates that the proposed amendments result in the same GRFA outcome when the garage, EHU and EHU garage are located in the basement as when those uses are located on the other levels of the house (5,810 sq.ft. of GRFA). C. The following are the GRFA calculations for the Giordano's existing house based upon the proposed regulations: Lower Level 3,083 -1,850 basement -600 garage -401 EHU -246 EHU garage = -14 sq.ft. GRFA Living Level 2,853 sq.ft. GRFA Upper Level 2,971 sq.ft. GRFA Total 8,907 sq.ft. actual, physically constructed floor area 5,810 sq.ft. GRFA The Vail Town Code regulates the total allowable GRFA for a lot. The Vail Town Code does not regulate how much GRFA may be constructed on each individual level of a structure. Both the Leever Residence and the Giordano Residence demonstrate how the GRFA calculations for any single level of a house may be more or less than the actual, physical floor area of that level. The top floor of the Leever house counts as Town of Vail Page 10 additional GRFA due to the vaulted volumes above, even though there is no additional floor. Under today's regulations, the Giordano's 3,083 square foot lowest level counts as only 734 sq.ft of GRFA; and under the proposed regulations, the Giordano's lowest level would be a negative GRFA number (-14 sq.ft.). Regardless, the GRFA measurement of each individual floor, Staff believes the total GRFA calculation outcomes should be constant and not vary by where in the house a garage or EHU is located. Staff believes the proposed amendments to the GRFA regulations create consistency in the GRFA calculations, which ultimately creates equity between property owners. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-2: Definitions 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. urposes: 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. Town of Vail Page 11 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) 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. istricts: 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. Town of Vail Page 12 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. (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) et: (A) The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; and (8) 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 Town of Vail Page 13 engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the administrator. (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls. (7) Vaulted Spaces: Interior vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" with a floor to ceiling height less than sixteen feet (16), as measured from the finished floor to the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. (8) Roofed Or Covered Decks, Etc.: Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) 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) riteria: (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. Town of Vail Page 14 (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 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 Town of Vail Page 15 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." 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 Town of Vail Page 16 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. 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 Town of Vail Page 17 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 October 24, 2011 memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 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 D. Langenwalter GRFA Summary of Calculations and Deductions E. Test Case House Floor Plans and Elevations Town of Vail Page 18 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 exclide 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 downy ill 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 `or 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 casements but there is no discussion that excludes garage area from the basement deduction. Furthermore, in the case of the identical houses 'A' and 'S' 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 19 Appeal of Planning Staff Application of GRFA Exclusions Page 3 of 5 Peel /La ngenwalter Architects April 20, 2011 12-95-3: DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND EXCLUSIONS: A. Within The Hillside Residential (HR), Single -Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), And Two -Family PrimarylSecondary 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 (2596) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. inferior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. (6) Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the iloorlcehing 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 app ied toward the area they allow for the basement exclusion. Town of Vail Page 20 N U7 C O o xa ui Q LL L7 O C O m G Q. a t c� C Q C N it 3� O °10 CDN � J N CL (1)QaQ Is 0 YS NO Town of Vail Page 21 M O TV; x x W Q LL W L7 0 a CL CL Q N U)2 0_ a 3� D �O C Q1 A N C' N aCL< X11 A ►i h� � 1 r+ x � Q X 1 A ►i Town of Vail Page 22 r+ x � Q X 1 y`V 111 I Town of Vail Page 22 Attachment B 0 � TOWN OF VAI ` FILE COPY Department of C:owmiuuty Devilopmeirt 75 South Frontage Road Veil, Colorado 81657 970.479-21 8 I -AX 970-479-2452 www.raifgau care 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: 7. 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) Bath 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 41 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 crawlspaees (less than five-foot head height, access no larger than twelve sq. f[.), 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 crawl space shall be calculated as follows: "Setting A New Staru&rd For Community Developmew Deprartmew Services" 40 AECYCLEo rAr&e Town of Vail Page 23 0 k TOWN OF VAIN ` Depar!)new of Conen+wdty Deuelof+naew 75 5osth Frontage Rei:d Vai4 Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 570-479-2452 www.rrtilgoutom Actual floor area lowest level _ 1,200 sq. ft. Garage deduction = -600 sq. ft. Crawlspace deduction = -100 sq -ft. Sub -total GRFA calculation = 500 sq. ft. Basement deduction = -250 sq -ft- (50% of 500) Final GRFA calculation = 260 sq.ft. With this GRFA calculation methodology, a garage is not counted as both a "garage deduction" and a "basement deduction". In this example, the 600 sq -ft. garage is equal to 0 sq.ft. of GRFA by applying the "garage deduction". This same 600 sq.ft. space does not count as -900 GRFA sq.ft., by applying both a "garage deduction" and "basement deduction" to tl-e 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. It 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-levei 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 fioo- areas are truly on the lowest level and which areas are not on the lowest level of the structure. In these scenarios, the fin shed floor elevatior. 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 andEnvironmental Commission and Town Council to clarify these regulations. "SettingA New Standard Far Community Developirent Department Services" i RECYCLEPAPER Town of Vail Page 24 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/garage) 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 (w/ga ra 2nd Level Floor Plan (w/LHU Basement Floor Plan (w/garage) 1st Level Floor Plan (w/LHU 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. C -4 G Cn W N 3 (0 0 v a) �rn OGi = Giascn3�OGi °� CD < CD CD �, CD Orn 0° D D rn D� rn O x cD rn o 0 0 G7 o �. rn cin - 0 `—' rl.-n � o 0 O CD cn :3 0—hn 0rno �Q D D�cDvvA.N �QgCD-nCL va� 0D�DDCL(n SCD �cn xcn��� D (0 Q (0 (D � cn' -� (D 2) Q p� 0 a 0 v 0 CCD CD0�� CD CD v-000 CD cDca0. —h2) 0 cD2)v r-11. (p ��v�v0 10 n c�'i=c(1) (1'nm(A0C) Nom' �- D �Cncn��Q vn=�n��� X00 rn "� �0 ss r �O ) — CD °° �rnxOrncnv _ cn N cD C7 =r v— CD I ..oCD Cn CD�cDC)0�����c(0 CD 2) a�, r =�cno Q 0 � 0 p' CD v 0 Z � D CD p N 0 D 0< c TI D � - • 0z rn �0rn�`no�go�����cn(��rn� fir° �,�, m o�0=3 O c0i : O < v cn cn cn _ CD O cn D cn 0r O < CD cl)FNzNo��m [COD �� 2) =T 0CL ) vO�N� -h CD �s -n N�� �.rnfD rn `n v < rn `n rn �fD DCD < _< `—' CD o D �- CD W �° o cn �p con O CD N, rm CD n Q lD 2 N 0 cn m fD v cn (0 v0(n =T Cr CD CD cn �cn o��c0n3c0 ci—hD CD CDD o 0�rnrn0)D•ccnc�'i�'-�v� �� �'�cnrn�'a x v CD �� cn a .-l- Q Q. :3 50 0 0 0 L. � CD o v CD cD v �; p (0 v _ Q CD cn -n ' (D (D r•r -, CD CD 0 -0 O '� v CD cn CD r_ C CD CL cn (D v o f � (D CD CD N =TM'� cn cn (D rml.cn O < O L 0 CDn cn CD m CL COD O CD Q Cr CD cD O CDa) 0 � r -0 CD a N N O v w v � -�� .moo M 3 cD cD — 0CD CD CD (n 0 o = r° Q� CD O CD �. n N rnr (D CCD p CCD p v CD CD Fn CD CD (D �. CD rn Cn o rn� n D D D D0 cn ,SCDCnnvo•a2i CD hC CD (D 0 0 0 O c � C S C n�� O cn CL y r-= -0 CD CD C a Z CD CD cn CDD CL CD 2) (M C'i xfD I (D C 0 O rn a cn "•' CD (D CD 0 1 1 N a) rn � p' o O (D N CD � = Q C4 0 2) 0 r•r ,�� o �' Q - (D r•r 0 0 Q �o �, I CD D Q�N = = U) vi vi 2 0 D p N a<i � E O CD = rn Cl N 0 �n n �����'O < D �2) Q�cO 0 r CD >y r rn CD (D — •cn• C7 0��vrn� 0 000 o Z = CD cr -h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p cD (n (n U) (n (n (n (n (n U) h N O cD m m mn m m m m m mn CDcn < 00 N 3 N 3 W m n Z_ 0 Z D 0 r 0 Z Z v x 0 C cn 0 cn � s §��m CI c ® q2 \ ,!■22��� nsAll .wf �) \ � M a §Co� oCp ■ � ==2 Acm o �2 q ~ | {§ 2 }| B T ±§ §, ... < . \� § \. \ . ��������\.`�\\�}\ \ : 3 aD41 0rncp mzyV� T O� GS H fwp� 9 Z i A p CO2 mmjo ~a� y�. 9�R �.I _BMW .jrj m.""v """'""""'�""'� 7357 VAIL VALLEY 09 WE 7t�Pym z—... 7�e e�teheEects °"�" < LOT 6, HW° 3, F3LIkG 7, VAIL VALLEY SUBDIVISION "�Q'0' "�I 8& —sym rt._ecr �� VAIL, Ctl wr n�oiu159P6si F�W�-Gyue�eMal nr, L1E]EVER ]RESIDENCE 1397 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE @ w�v✓� �+ LOT 6, BLK 3, FILING 1, VAIL VALLEY SUB DTVI SION C �onrecr .�. VALL, CO + a a # 4 a � Egi, s9 i"e 5 X11 �4i I b % s y � @ � (\[VER RESIDENCE � )| .m _LV Lc O_. _�� 3naG� � nS._SIGN -- - -- 2m - - ` - 01101" 00 A o PRELIMINARY: not for construction ff ." 1-1 �- PRELIMINARY --. -- - - --- - --- ---. - -- 1107/1109 Vail Valley Drive Giordano Residence Town of Vail, CO W H.; p 30 3, 1p 01101" 00 A o PRELIMINARY: not for construction ff ." 1-1 �- PRELIMINARY --. -- - - --- - --- ---. - -- 1107/1109 Vail Valley Drive Giordano Residence Town of Vail, CO W H.; p %RVA-'h10"F VAg, Inc. I I 0 i VEA J L Q ! Ow :0 o � oa NMIi II �I • �I r uu iY zm ^�h�.•nMs��So.,... ��dlIi I se.a Main Level Floor Plan QP,FA. I nor,00 � f.III I � ane. A2.2 VAg, Inc. O D _Oi A U I a� ONE 0 eao' n L7 fall W :77 -U.nec➢.rlm'SA hmtl I C1RPA -TotkL� Upper ' Lowen_ It.*Level MNN . z,rs3,� UpreR-�91nsK Floor 't07hL�r/�3589F GFc Plan AS Au.oweo• 6,5�s1� - — 2707.00 LL�� rP A2.3 10 twl.'Fw:tv I : ", ljt�cfl lq�, '40 Rm .1117 I OEM W A/4' 00. , 01"MINIV.-Of Al-, wif ;4 4W 1 i fl WIWI Emu] P1111% rpm.; WWI ONTO im ling II 4r gi IC •ii���� '� r�nBis�;iC, " 1 _- Imo■ �����Tia �itoz al IIAice: IF 1-0 Mltw-pl \ell � ,���A�I� �"!I �►�►'►'��.��� ��� PRELIMINARY ! net ter tnnctriittir :WA I L I TOWN OF Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: October 10, 2011 Subject: Status Update on the Town of Vail Residential Sustainable Building Initiative, and the Valley -Wide Model Green Building Code Effort. SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide a status update and overview of the Town of Vail's Sustainable Building Code (SBI) program, a points -based green building checklist developed by a committee of local citizens and green building code experts, and to introduce the broader effort by the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability to develop a model, "above building code" program similar to Eagle County's ECOBuild program. II. BACKGROUND Problem Statement Like many resort mountain communities, the Town of Vail faces challenges related to energy consumption. Many amenities typical of a cold climate resort require more natural gas and electricity usage for larger homes, as well as outdoor pools, hot tubs, snowmelt, heat tape, fire pits, towel warmers, lighting, wine cellars, etc. According to a study by the Sopris Foundation on Aspen homes, on average, Colorado mountain resort community homes generate 35-40% more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than the average American home. This contributes to three critical things: global climate change, warming temperatures and decreasing snow pack which fuels our economy and is the source of our water supply. Improper construction waste management practices contributes to the Eagle County landfill, which is predicted to have a lifespan of only 12 more years, without millions of dollars in expansion investment. Improper construction staging, particularly in wetlands, riparian area conservation and stream setbacks has led to a gradual degradation of the ecosystem health of Gore Creek due to urbanization and stormwater runoff. There is a lack of awareness and implementation of best management practices related to energy efficient and green building. To ignore unsustainable building practices will lead to escalating carbon emissions and energy costs, decreasing snow pack, stream health, fish, and overall environmental health. Why Green Building? The built environment has a vast impact on the natural environment, human health, and the economy. In the United States, buildings alone (not including outdoor energy use) account for' : • 39 percent of total energy use • 12 percent of the total water consumption • 68 percent of total electricity consumption • 38 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions By adopting green building strategies, we have the opportunity to maximize both economic and environmental performance. Sustainable construction methods can be integrated into buildings at any stage, from design and construction, to renovation and deconstruction. However, the most significant benefits can be obtained if the design and construction team takes an integrated approach from the earliest stages of a building project that take into account site design and the surrounding environment, as well as indoor and outdoor energy and w ater consumption. Potential benefits of green building can include: Environmental benefits • Enhance and protect biodiversity and ecosystems • Improve air and water quality • Reduce waste streams • Conserve and restore natural resources Economic benefits • Reduce operating costs • Create, expand, and shape markets for green product and services • Improve occupant productivity • Optimize life -cycle economic performance Social benefits • Enhance occupant comfort and health • Heighten aesthetic qualities • Minimize strain on local infrastructure • Improve overall quality of life Goals On January 1, 2009, the Vail Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1, Series of 2009, which adopted the Vail Environmental Strategic Plan. The strategic plan called for a sustainable building initiative, with pertinent goals and actions as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIC PLAN (in part) GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 2, ACTION ITEMS 2.1-2.3 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Why Build Green" http://www.epa..qov/.qreenbuildinq/pubs/whybuild.htm Town of Vail Page 2 Goal 2: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and impact on global climate change. Objective 2: Implement a sustainable building code program that requires new construction and major renovations to achieve designated resource and energy efficiency targets. Action Items 2.1-2.3: 2.1 Implement a high performance building code or program for all new development and Town facilities (e.g. LEED for New Construction, Green Built Colorado, or similar program). 2.2 Develop and adopt energy and resource -efficient building standards for all existing Town facilities. 2.2.1 Require all Town -funded remodel projects to exceed the International Energy Conservation Code by at least 15% on retrofits. 2.2.2 Require Energy Star or better products when available for all new equipment. 2.2.3 Utilize strategic tree planting to reduce cooling loads of buildings. 2.3 Educate the public on the adopted green building program and provide information and services at the Department of Community Development. III. COUNCIL DIRECTION In 2010, Staff developed the first draft of the Residential Sustainable Building Initiative (SBI), a beyond -code green building program designed to be integrated within existing Town regulations. However, after several reviews by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council, and feedback from citizen workshops the Vail Town Council determined that the most appropriate way to introduce and encourage green building in the Town of Vail was to implement a more voluntary, points -based incentive program with more leeway in terms of options for compliance. Therefore, Staff convened the SBI Committee, whose members included local architects, mechanical engineers, citizens, quality assurance professionals, contractors and builders to establish a points -based system for residential building. The Committee was established as per the following: Ground Rules • Doing nothing is not an option • Town Council is final decision maker • Committee is advisory to Town Council • Approach — we will use more carrots than sticks • There will be a wide range of reasonable alternatives — performance based program • Factors to consider: o Cost -neutral o Political will Givens Town of Vail Page 3 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan - The program will achieve the goal of a 20% energy use reduction The program will be tested prior to implementation Program (residential and commercial) will be fully complete and ready for adoption in the winter of 2012. The group met several times throughout the winter and spring season of 2011, agreed upon the purpose and goals of the program, and developed a draft checklist (Attachment A) by evaluating the top environmental and economic priorities for the community. Purpose of the SBI To protect the Town of Vail public and environmental health, safety and welfare by affecting both residential and commercial construction with the intent to conserve energy, water and other natural resources, preserve and protect the health of our environment through an effective, incentive and points -based green building program. Outcomes of the SBI The SBI Committee determined that at a minimum, the SBI should: • Require a sliding scale of points requirements based on total square footage of home, and apply to 500 sq. feet or more of additions or remodels. • Require a 15% increase in energy efficiency beyond the minimum required by the 2009 International Energy Efficiency Code. • Enhance the overall environmental quality of buildings in the Town of Vail and decrease the impact on the natural world. • Provide incentives (possible incentives under discussion include: additional site coverage/height bonus, reduced building permit fees, a percentage refund of construction use tax, a faster review process, and additional staging areas (in right-of-way). • Educate the community on the benefits and possibilities of efficient building. • Incentivize renewable energy, or provide a source of funding to increase renewable energy in the Town of Vail. SBI Categories • Site Design • Building Design • Landscape and Irrigation • Construction Waste Management • Energy • Renewable Energy • Snowmelt Systems* • Pools and Hot Tubs • Indoor Water Use • Indoor Air Quality • Quality Control/Ongoing Maintenance • Innovation Town of Vail Page 4 * At present, the snowmelt systems category includes only boiler efficiency. The majority of the Committee agreed that a snowmelt offset program similar to Eagle County's and the City of Aspen's Renewable Energy Management Program (REMP) in which snowmelt is either offset with renewable energy or a fee is assessed per square foot, was appropriate for the Town of Vail's S81 program. In fact, several members felt that without addressing outdoor energy use, often the most significant consumer of natural gas for the entire property, we would be going to a lot of trouble for no environmental net -gain. The Committee selected criteria for evaluation of the point values of each proposed green building measure included in the checklist. Criteria in order of importance (1 being of the most value to the committee and therefore containing the most available points) are as follows: 1. Energy and Climate: Achieves TOV Strategic Plan Goal, an agreed-upon percentage reduction in energy use, reduction in natural gas or electricity, Energy Star appliances, added insulation, efficient lighting, heat recovery units, highly efficient boilers etc. 2. Ecosystem Health/Water Conservation: Gore Creek and water quality, land preservation, wildlife, wetlands, vegetation, light pollution/ Dual flush, low flow systems, irrigation. 3. Waste Diversion/Human Health Impacts: Achieves TOV Strategic Plan Goal, potential to reduce landfill contributions, increase production at MRF/Indoor air quality measures, bio -based materials, comfort, occupancy satisfaction. 4. Cost to Implement/Difficulty: Price of additional insulation, equipment, tracking or measuring (e.g. recycling, waste diversion, etc.) 5. Educational Value: Introduction of new concept, or establishment of a culture of environmental stewardship through practice. IV. EAGLE VALLEY RESIDENTIAL EFFICIENCY POINTS SYSTEM Roughly halfway through the Vail SBI Committee's work on the checklist, the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability (EVAS) received a grant from the Governor's Energy Office to work with Valley communities to implement a model, beyond -code building program for the entire Valley. EVAS formed a committee of valley representative, including building officials, contractors, architects, engineers, etc. and began developing a points -based green building program based largely on Eagle County's ECOBuild, incorporating items from Vail's draft SBI, and adding additional items as needed. The Town of Vail Environmental and Building Department Staff was asked to participate in this committee, and agreed to adjusting the SBI program and timeline to more closely align with the broader effort to increase efficiency and consistency in building codes in Eagle County. The Town of Vail Staff will continue to work in parallel with EVAS and communities who have agreed to be a part of the valley -wide effort, including the Towns of Avon, Eagle, and Eagle County. V. NEXT STEPS Staff will return to the PEC on October 24th, 2011 to review the draft points system in more detail. In the upcoming months, Staff will also reconvene the members of the SBI Committee, finalize the residential points system, and agree upon appropriate Town of Vail Page 5 incentives, as well as develop a recommendation for the snowmelt offset program. Staff will also continue to work with EVAS on the Valley -wide code. The SBI will incorporate all of the items from the model code, but will also include additional items specific to Vail that were selected by the SBI committee. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask pertinent questions and provide feedback on the general approach of the SBI program for Vail, and the broader Valley -wide model code effort. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. SBI Draft Residential Checklist B. Eagle Valley Draft Residential Efficiency Points System Town of Vail Page 6 f1>I IIIIIIII IIIII 1111111 IIIIIIIIIII O O O — � N a O O O c y. — O O O Co Q O Co S- • c co N °' v a) -a -o C Cn °� E 0 N i c a) U C U -a *' OL 0. "a O "� N co 0 co 0) o fll CF) co N NO N fll 77 co N 0) 4V > O 4- L L O O O Q O fn O co O O co 0 co C r � � O L _ O 0 U) (U fll r. II t`o E U L 0 coco co O � O fll � co L fn L (C O O a)" — L fn L Co L tu t a) Q Co 0 co E N O O O O C-- (U N O N v- O twoN CU co O U t3 c += N O L O m C c O E Co cu c a) 3:E O E a) ~ to O 0o O Co U v O .. a c o N O O Q) Q) Q) r Co v- ,� fn N 0 cu N v- p N+-" N N Co LO +L O d Co Co .� O L c c0. n c L c co 3: cu cu +L-— E C� U O n 0y - U Ln 4-- U fn Co L fll fll O CoCUa 7 4 �. O a, E E fn•. •. O N vLn>> w 0 E - 00 fv -a — LO Q) 1) fn -O N Co OL OL OL O Co N 3 c c 2 A Cl ClLL E E O0 c 0 0 0 X N O U >i . . p CS OL O C-) -a NON O ll ll II L vO O O y°?LOQ m > m m( fn a E O E E o o O 0 - _ Izzzz0� OUc n fCcllo+ >o — (n — � N a O c y. — O Co Q O Co S- • c co N °' v a) -a -o C Cn °� E 0 N i c a) U C U -a *' OL 0. "a O "� fll N E Q co "�_ > -6 O U O L N .N fll a OL f a) fll c fll c > f? S L -0 :3 Co fn OL f c to > O E O "a OCo -2 O U U co v O> L 4- CU i N a CU O Q � ytoL+ -0O fll f L O0.fll 7> o U O N f c t �n E O f p cu c O cu "O U v O c o fll In O 0 a) c U 'a O O r co a) co u fv s c (C E fn fll cuy co ++ o O L y-+ fn s *' _ c c E fn Co p E (U — N o N N f +� >,0. OL O fn fll "- U) LO p U a U f a S i {n CO �+ a n Lcu O c LO L L S L D.'� .. �+ O - U C O S. S. fn -a N f -a c to Co •L N a; m Cn Co Co z O .L LL+ fll O • S= , m N c c° i fll fll > a (2) cu 3:c O N N O O f v O °1"E U O a mE� co c u _CUE��.�.` 0 CO O- =E N— u fn fn isfff O L c U UNO aa O O a) Lv O >+ >+ — E UU0 O Z •JQ U in ll a� ll a� J O Z OO Z e M c -J R* M M N r -I M M M c -I -1 M M N O OLr) N L O L O L O C C C 0)co O .p Co Y co co CL U co N d C N r - N Co 0cl cl N O N N U N N O O Co N Q O O LL N p) L Co C U L co �, N_ a) co co T N N N W 0)-0 +L N CV C C N O U Co n OZ N L ' W L N O N L ++4-- C coQ >j p N L o O pG Q 0 i L O� N O j N N N O O O E (U C E M i N N C .p O Co" = 00 Q' N N N co N 0 Co N 0)L — U L O N O L L O L 5 N y w O _ Co N N p Co +N +N a L � Co o to �_ y "a O ,: N p- . O NLL- U CO CU p Ie Co • .O CLOo NL L X O — N Cu N N 0 p O V p E — 0 O Q. OU C O U C C CV N L O 7 7 L Co �0 L U N X E� D N — CU N L O N O O) p N .O+ Co O C O w O w Co N N L o LL Q N E— c o O a� -00- E E o Co Co -p o O 0 Co >, 0) p .� lf') >> O o o LO - N N L L N C Co N i O N O O . p p U L p N O p O L p N N p N O w CCD O O N Co O C i E Q p .� Co Co Co p - to to L O -0 N L O U c N O > U N E to N s >> Co s a? O N N CQ)). + O L a) c' U .� c .O y --i O C N CU L C C N E N N co �, co r_ o o a� a� a� Or 0 > cu U U cu O Co 0o Co LQ. " N N N N N L _ Q) � (V Co Co O \ cu = += •� "O N p U 0 Co N L CU "- p U Cn Co O p .0-� Co N N N CV M r N E o L M W L �N/ - U L-- Co N ;� C C L c E Co p O O .N cu -6 p LL E N O E L C U L L i N Z3 N Co NO O C L OL O CE 0 CU N N '� += += E co Co L a, c w O y-+ E N a) -a L cV N a to to cu Ltp a) 2 O Ln U v L O N L CV U W CV 0 i 0 -0 Co O O O -0 � O r -I C L w L CU N> H 0 °-' O O p co E 0 c c °��' Q) pZ a� c E" L vii co V)00-00aao E U co aa))`°>,cnU�N.O � Co Co Q_ O °� E> N O (n a L E L E L L— C L N Cn U N W 2 N E L >= E O O U a Co c Co 0 � Co N N O N u, c N Q) .— U S Co __ 5 N N N o E Q E 0— . a a' N> °' O O N '� Co Co N N Co O U > a� Co •- Co — E Y L > > O a� O U O U >N — O>O O O N w C72Qd W Z W 0- 0- QZD (aO n C N N r -I N r -I r -I r -I r -I ci r -I r -I M M r -I N CCn E � Cn N O C O O E O CO p 0) L C U � 4-- 0 O U co L a) .U - p L a) CO O O O Q yam+ CO (O r coco a) O N LO N co (n Cn L 0. L co Q L a CO M CO N Ot p 4-- 7 a)co CO N O Q U O a) CU =! cuU N 4- O U •Q Q N .O Y 0 Q >= a) U �. CO O U .�. 0 2 co L U a) E a) CO O U c O N CO Q Q. L (n cu N � N U L C O C a) °-)ESO E U U L O (n "E a a) O O CO co c CO CU 0 L E co O O N Q to O O 'E C O O U N CO v, E O U c a) N L CU 0.U ,> E O •Ln cu L y ' 2 4-- a) c o L oc0 a c0 :� a) v 0. E a) C E U 7 Y > U O O L !EL O a) U 2 �—> d C) 0 O 0 o 72 X L O co O "O (n a) L N CO � O (n 00 E O c CO (n O C3 Co CO C C3 i L LL N O Q a) O O LO O — CO •L N a) O E> LU O C3 -0 (n 7 -r< a) co> _ C3 N " i L +� N CO y CO o CSO CO p L — N -0 ' N Y C a) L O .•. U N CO Cn a.cu U) Cn E L O E a) E U cn a) U N E Cl E c O d v CO 0 iO OO Q ., Cn UL J CacnO 00 C) o O — a) Ov cn cn cu Q) a)4 •(n p o N a) E "0 N U O L O CO a) c o 4-- . U L E CO O U "O CO E cu COt3 O O p O Q i y LL N a) L �Q-a o CU N= CU L N a C CU U -p a) CL C7 y U o 0 N N a O U N (n v c N . U y a to L "- CO �' N (n p a) N LL V/ U) E L CO L 0 L M N o r Cn a) a) S O cu •r U 7 N (n a) CU L U L O U L 0 0 o p E c E CO U N C .0-� o L N o o N U (n a) U� L a) N -0 L N -- o o LL c O L O E CO CO CO a) N N c_ .N Q a) " — CO N a) U a) E Y cu 0 E '0 -0 CO � CO O .--� CO CO O CO O U o ,i- -a � a) c O 5 > �_ a) O Q)UL U) c ;) E " a__ CU o O c c0 U o O cu c0 � -0 3 � U a) cu i (ten CO — E 0 aoi c O a c a) 0 0 0 Z O Q) �O -0 a) a) Q O N O O CLO cu oUDDDQO CJQLLQQ' W D00 � 2 2. CO Q "E co C) C O N D E E O O U E a) a) Q N (n L 0 a? U y 'E CU Q L U U � D M N M1• X m E rl CCn E � Cn N O C O O E O Q O p 0) L C U � 4-- 0 O U co L a) .U - p L a) CO O O O Q yam+ CO (O r a) O N LO N co (n O L 0. L co Q L a CO M CO N Ot p 4-- 7 a)co N O Q U a) CU =! cuU N 4- O U •Q Q N .O Y 0 Q >= a) U �. CO O U .�. 0 2 L U a) E a) CO O U c O N CO (n cu N CO N U L C O C a) °-)ESO U U L O (n a a) O O CO CO CU 0 07 E O O N Q to O O 'E C O O U N CO v, E O U c a) N L CU 0.U ,> E O •Ln cu L y ' a) E o 0 oc0 a c0 :� a) v 0. E a) C E U 7 Y > U O O L !EL O a) U 2 �—> d C) O <D r -I rotentiai innovation mints uiscussed in (3roup (mostly uncommonly used points in current LCobulld System): 24" OC, ICFs (insulated concrete forms), sequentially -staged boilers comments )er IECC 2009 n book, write for averages ECC 2009 is R2 -ess stringent than Energy Star. Sections 5.0 & 6.0 lot yet discussed by committee cote change from Ecobuild to kWh, not kv ResidentialEAGLE VALLEY Quantity Level (QL-as noted per line item): 1 = 10% - 25%, 2 = 26% - 50%, 3 = 51% - 75%, 4 = 76% - 100% Points will be determined once items are finalized. Points listed below are for reference only and not final. r SITE/WATER CONSERVATION 1.1 lRevegetate site with native plants 1.2 lReduction of turf Lesser of 25% lot area or 1000 ft2 3pts; xerisca a only, 5 pts 1.3 Low -flow or dual -flush toilet 1.4 f or less 1.4 2.0 gpm or less showerheads(per stall Subtotal 2.0 Mandato 2.1 RECYCLING AND - Construction waste management plan completed 2.2 Recycling bins on job site for cardboard, commingle and wood 2.3 Jobsite recycling based on % similar to LEED for cardboard, wood, commingle, drywall 2.4 Surplus building materials donated 1 pt per 10 cubicyards) to Habitat Outlet, etc. 2.5 Reclaimed a/o recycled content materials 2 pts per material used in over 50% of building) 2.6 Use of Colorado beetle kill pine salvaged wood, x pts. for over 50% of structural wood, x pts. for over 50% of 3.0 Subtotal FRAMING &MATERIALS 3.1 Panelized/prefabricated exterior walls stems 3.2 Panelized/prefabricated exterior roofs stems 3.3 Panelized/prefabricated exterior floors stems 3.4 Two -stud corner framing 3.2 FSC or SFI certified materials 2 pts per material used in over 50% of building) 3.3 Materials manufactured within Colorado and/or rapidly renewable materials (1 pt per material) 3.4 Straw Bale or Structural Insulated Panels (SIP'S) used for all exterior walls 3.5 Exposed architectural or structural elements made from composite/engineered materials .r Subtotal Mandatory All thermostats must be programmable(excluding in -floor heat - per IECC 2009 4.10 Efficient boiler/furnace: 1 pt for each AFUE % over 92 4.11 Energy Star refrigerator, dishwasher, washing machine 1 pt each 4.12 Tankless on -demand water heater(s) providing 100% water heating 4.13 Efficient lighting (CFLs, T8/T5, LED or equivalent for over 90% of structure) 4.14 No can lights penetrating the thermal barrier 4.15 No mechanical air conditioning 4.16 Install economizer or whole -house fan 4.17 Radiant floor and/or hydronic baseboard heat (>_ 50% of heating system) 4.18 Air to air heat exchanger 4.19 Roof/ceiling insulation: 1 pt for each R value over 49, 2 pts for each R value for continuous insul. 4.20 Wall insulation: 1 pt for each R value over 20 up to 8 pts, 2 pts for each R value for continuous insul. 4.21 Under slab insulation: 1 pt for each R value over R10 4.22 Blown or sprayed insulation in wall cavity 4.23 Blown or sprayed insulation in floor cavity 4.24 Blown or sprayed insulation in ceiling cavity 4.25 Windows: 1 point for each u-.01 below U-.30 (U-.25 = 5 points) 4.26 Insulated headers research LEED verbiage w/ Megan) 4.27 Insulate all hot water pipes to R value 4 4.28 Blower door test with less than .3 ACH 4.29 Duct blast testing for forced -air furnaces stems with 6 cfm/100 sf or less Subtotal 5.1 Passive solar. Work with Megan on proposal to stakeholder committee. 5.2 Solar hot waters stem. Different levels for increasing points: 25%, 50%, 75%? 5.3 Solar thermals stem provides space heating. Different levels for increasing points: 30%, 60%? 5.4 Solar PV, wind, and/or micro -hydro system on-site x points for eve .5 kWh supplied 5.5 Ground source heat pumps Different levels for increasing points. Need to determine levels. 5.6 Pellet stoves, wood -burning or open fireplaces with 80% minimum efficiency and maximum particulate release of 2g/hour. Note: Town of Eagle does not allow any new wood -burners. .r Subtotal INDOOR AIR QUALITY 6.1 1 HEPA or MERV 13 or better filter in HVAC system, or no HVAC 6.2 Low- or non-toxic floor coverings Different points for different levels: 25%, 50%, 75%? 6.3 Hard -surface flooring 50% or 90% levels). 6.4 Use all low-VOC volatile organic compounds) adhesive and sealants. 6.5 Use all low-VOC volatile organic compounds) paint. Stains are excluded. 6.6 No attached garage or automatic exhaust fan in attached garage 6.7 Painted walls and ceiling in garage 6.8 Seal joints and cracks between garage and house 6.9 Radon miti ation s stem installed. Passive s stems are mandato in Vail er IRC a endix. 6.10 eep Mir c ose an sea a uring cons ruc ion, vacuum uc s prior o 7.0 Subtotal INNOVATION POINTS Potential points for innovation in energy efficiency not listed above - see below TOTAL rotentiai innovation mints uiscussed in (3roup (mostly uncommonly used points in current LCobulld System): 24" OC, ICFs (insulated concrete forms), sequentially -staged boilers comments )er IECC 2009 n book, write for averages ECC 2009 is R2 -ess stringent than Energy Star. Sections 5.0 & 6.0 lot yet discussed by committee cote change from Ecobuild to kWh, not kv hot-water recirc (if shows true energy reduction) *Points for above sections will be determined after items decided. Point references in each item's text are based on Ecobuild and may change. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 26, 2011 1:00pm TOWN OF YAII;' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz John Rediker Tyler Schneidman Henry Pratt Luke Cartin 15 minutes 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 ACTION: Approved with Conditions MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. 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. Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Craig Cohn, the applicant, stated that the unit is not close to the bus and is difficult to rent due to its location. Commissioner Rediker asked how many other EHUs are on site at this SDD. Rachel Dimond responded that there are no other EHUs on site. Commissioner Pratt asked why the EHU was smaller than the SDD specified. Rachel Dimond responded that the Town required only 433 square feet for an EHU upon recording of the EHU. 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: Tabled to October 10, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 1 Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Commissioner Pratt asked why the breezeway is considered GRFA. Bill Gibson responded that the breezeway is GRFA because it is more than 75% enclosed. Commissioner Pierce asked for clarification about the number of allowable units on the lot. Bill Gibson clarified that due to the lot size, only one unit is allowed and the existing duplex is legally nonconforming. Commissioner Rediker asked how reducing the garage area from 640 to 600 square feet as recommended by Staff would affect the bulk and mass, specifically height. Steve Francis, representative of the applicant, stated that the entry will be shortened to make more room at the entry. Bill Gibson stated that there was a 3D model on the center table for the Commission's review. Commissioner Pierce stated that it is reasonable to request a two -car garage. However, he was concerned about the impact of the proposed new bulk and mass above the existing house and lack of compatibility with the existing house. He supports a setback and site variance, but is against this specific proposal because of the new garage design. Commissioner Rediker asked about allowable driveway grades. He asked if a better solution would be to heat the driveway. Steve Francis stated the existing driveway has a 21% slope and is dangerous. In the winter, cars often get stuck and the house was hit three times last winter by cars entering the driveway. Bill Gibson stated that the maximum driveway grade is 10% when unheated, and 12% when heated. Commissioner Kurz stated that he is concerned about increased bulk of the garage design. He stated he is in favor of this because it a workable solution and similar to the previous design that received variance approvals. Commissioner Pratt stated that reducing the size of the garage by 40 square feet doesn't make sense. Both units should have two car garages. He asked Staff if they built garage that didn't touch the driveway, would they need to fix the driveway. He also asked about regulations that required no backing out of driveways. Bill Gibson responded that the provision prohibiting backing out into the road was removed from the regulations several years prior. Commissioner Pratt stated that the garage should be lowered in elevation. Commissioner Cartin said that it is unfortunate that existing mature trees will be removed. He agreed with the previous comments about additional building mass, and noted his concern about creating a long unbroken front facade. He asked the applicant to clarify what is proposed under the garage. Steve Francis explained the layout and identified a proposed crawl space under the garage. Commissioner Schneidman stated that the trees should be replaced and that the garage addition as proposed seemed out of character with the home. Page 2 Commissioner Pratt asked about a tree replacement plan Warren Campbell responded that trees will be replaced with a number of trees the DRB finds appropriate for the site, but not foot for foot as the site would like not be able to handle that level of additional planting. Commissioner Pierce asked if the slope on site is over 30%. Bill Gibson stated he did not know the exact slope, but the lot did was likely not in excess of 30%. Commissioner Kurz stated that they may want to instruct the applicant to come back Commissioner Pierce stated that the garage is insensitive to the site and may need to be reduced in mass to minimize impacts to the neighbors. He suggested the applicant come back with a revised design that lowered the finished floor and roof heights of the proposed garage. Steve Francis stated that they considered all options and that the neighbor's driveway and the steep grades are constraints on the design. Commissioner Pierce asked if the applicant wants to come back or if the applicant wants a final vote. Commissioner Kurz suggested that Staff's proposed condition to reduce the floor area of the garage be stricken. 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: Table to October 24, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum Commissioner Kurz stated that the proposed amendments make GRFA more equitable. He asked if Kathy Langenwalter agreed with the proposed amendments. Kathy Langenwalter stated that when she originally read the regulations, she thought each deduction was taken in any order, not how the code is currently implemented. She noted that the proposed amendments clarified how GRFA should be calculated. Bill Gibson stated that while the appeal was for changes to calculations of GRFA related to HR, SFR, PS, R, Staff recommends changes to all residential districts. Commissioner Pratt asked if the basement deduction applies only to the extent to which you do a construct a garage. Bill Gibson explained that the deductions would occur in different columns Page 3 Commissioner Pratt expressed concern that it appeared that a double credit was being given for garage credits being located o the lowest level. He was concerned with the result of a negative GRFA calculation on the lowest level. Kathy Langenwalter spoke to the history of credits being given to property owners to construct a garage. Commissioner Pratt believes there is credit being given to the garage area which was not intended in the proposed language. Commissioner Cartin is concerned with the concept of negative GRFA. He does not understand how that is possible and it will result in bulk and mass above grade on the site. He believes there is a double counting of the credits. Commissioner Pratt believed that there would be unintended consequences based upon the proposal. Commissioner Kurz questioned how the proposed amendments could be abused. Commissioner Pierce suggested that the item be tabled and Staff provide additional examples of GRFA calculations under the existing and proposed regulations at their next hearing. 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: Table to October 10, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the staff memorandum. She presented several photos of the activities that are occurring throughout the Village and Lionshead. She highlighted the policy direction provided by Council to get skis out of guests hands and boots off of their feet, thus encouraging lingering in the Village and Lionshead. She highlighted the history of the existing regulations and the intent to balance a lively retail with guest services. A summary of each businesses' practices was presented. Greg Spencer, representing the Sebastian, advocated for finding a solution to the issue being raised. He highlighted that the troubled asset his owner took possession of was looking for a competitive advantage to offer guests in a hotel located along the Frontage Road. They identified a need for an anchor to the base of the mountain for both the summer and winter seasons. They found a commercial space in the Vista Bahn Building and initially wanted to do lockers, but after conversations with the Town, the lockers were abandoned and a commercial aspect was included. They looked at what they were permitted to do and embraced solutions which provided their guest's needs and the town's regulations. He pointed out a challenge with the steps at the rear of the commercial space and the trouble with getting a ski rack up and down the grade change. He offered that the average daily rate in the winter was increased by $45 dollars a night partially due to the reinvestment into the property and the asset at the base of the mountain. Commissioner Pierce inquired to the approximate floor area dedicated to ski storage. Page 4 Mr. Spencer stated that out of 2,400 square feet, approximately 800 square feet was devoted to storage (30%). He added that they provide a variety of skis for their guests to accommodate the various snow conditions. Hans Willimann, general manager of the Four Seasons, felt that a ski concierge service was a necessity for their business. He highlighted that his business had to overcome the location of their hotel at a significant distance from the base of the mountain. He stated that 95% of guests are renting skis from Gorsuch with whom they have a 25 year agreement for the occupancy of the space and their provision of rental services. He described the operations that occur on each floor of the space. He spoke to the outside storage of the skis which is located off their property. He spoke to the scenario of the removal of the existing steps and the incorporation of a ramp. He added that he has worked with Vail Resorts to allow for a ski rack at the base of the ski yard in order to provide guests with the ability to not have to carry their skis to the snow. He concluded by stating that what he sees in the photographs is success as skis mean guest are in Town and revenue is being generated. Commissioner Pierce requested additional information on the various activities occurring on each floor of the building they are occupying. Mr. Willimann provided additional information on each floor and the use of the racks. He stated that only one rack is left at the base. Commissioner Kurz asked Mr. Willimann to respond to a photo of excessive racks outside of the Ski Haus and to speak to his experience in Europe resorts to potentially provide solutions. Hans Willimann stated that ski storage is typically at the base of the mountain and is typically at grade. He suggested the Town build a ski storage barn at the base of the mountain. Tom Siparo, owner of Double Diamond, stated that he is generally in favor of ski storage at or near the base of the mountain. He does have concerns that every business is not ideal for ski storage. He does not believe retailers would give up first floor area for a ski locker. He is concerned that there are regulations currently in place which are overlooked and unenforceable. He has a great deal of frontage on his property and he has some racks, but does not foresee putting racks along the full length. He supports a ski barn concept at the base of the mountain. This benefits all retailers. He stated tax revenue is not being collected due to ski storage being camouflaged as ski repair. He is not in support of hotels contracting with other retailers to provide ski storage. He added that he built 70 lockers in the basement of the Lionshead Centre and approximately 50 were leased on a season basis. He is concerned with businesses that are using loopholes. He does not believe signs placed on racks is attractive. He said the Town needs to resist having a bazaar flea market appearance. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Siparo stored skis on the first floor or outside. Mr. Siparo stated that he only stores skis which are rented on the first floor. Jeff Babb, representing Vail Resorts, believes there is no doubt that ski storage is important and providing the service only adds to a positive guest experience. He spoke to the bazaar appearance and their use of the pop-up tents. The tents provide a visual queue to guests and are completely removable at the end of the day when the service is concluded. He believes that the concept of a ski barn is interesting as constructing below grade space is expensive. He said he does not believe people will abandon their retail for ski storage. Regarding clutter, he stated that this is a ski area and their will be skis. Commissioner Pierce asked Jeff Babb to speak to the situation at the Ski Haus which is what is of concern to the Town. Page 5 Commissioner Kurz was concerned that the racks do not say whom the rack is to be used by and the use of the extent of the commercial frontage. What is occurring in this case is not appropriate. Jeff Babb, representing One Vail Place as the president of the HOA, added that the association is not favorable to what is occurring at the Hill Building. Commissioner Pierce stated that the first floor should remain public and not a private club. Jeff Babb suggested that limiting the amount of area for the orientation of the racks. He said racks should be signed to identify the use of the racks. He said it should not look like the racks are crammed into a space. Commissioner Kurz stated that there are numerous issues. There is a revenue issue, code enforcement issue and issue of location. He understands the need to have a presence at the base of the mountain, but asked rhetorically where will it end in terms of other businesses wanting to have the same advantage. He suggested a task force should be looking at this. He suggested that guest convenience is paramount, as well as merchant protection and protection of the right-of-way. Commissioner Pratt asked if there was a central ski storage ideally below the grade in the ski yard and how would it affect the business models. Tom Siparo stated that there are hotel guests and the general guest which are two different groups. Greg Spencer stated that the cost of ferrying skis is very expensive. Commissioner Cartin stated that the Ski Haus is an example of where we do not want to arrive. He is concerned about the number of hotel and lodges in Town and each operator wanted to meet the guest at the base of the snow yard which creates an undesirable situation at the end of the day. Jeff Babb believes that what is occurring right now is satisfying the majority of the guest's needs. Jeff highlighted that it was rare to reach capacity in the public ski storage facility at the base of the mountains. Commissioner Kurz stated that the issue is on mountain boot and shoe storage. He believes that it is going to take more than the PEC to solve. Tom Siparo inquired as to what is currently permitted. Rachel Dimond stated what was allowed. Commissioners Pratt and Kurz stated that horizontal zoning must be protected. Commissioner Pratt stated that a part of the experience is window shopping and storage in the aisles at night should not be permitted. If there are tents they should always have to be manned. He believes this is a Town issue to find a central storage facility to address boot and skis. He does not believe there is enough retail in Town as the experience of shopping is done as soon as you walk the primary commercial areas. Greg Spencer stated that smaller hotels are likely not going to make an investment pencil out for smaller lodges. Page 6 Warren Campbell asked Jeff Babb to speak with the partnership they had with certain lodges to store skis below Mountain Plaza. Jeff Babb spoke to the relationships with the Lodge at Vail and Austria Haus. Commissioner Pratt suggested that a conditional use permit may be appropriate for this type of use so that each situation can be reviewed and vetted for appropriateness. He suggested that through a CUP, an activity could be approved for a certain time period and be called up if necessary. Commissioner Pierce stated that a CUP process may be the way to go and as the use is understood more the regulations could be incorporated into a DRB application. Warren Campbell asked the commission to speak to whether the Four Seasons should be able to operate in the right-of-way. Commissioner Cartin stated that what he liked about the Four Seasons and the Arrabelle was that the use was contained and looked orderly unlike the Ski Haus situation. Bill Gibson compared outdoor ski staging to valet parking. Hans Willimann stated that parking valet and ski valet were not similar as 200 people in an hour and half do not request their cars. This is a chronic problem for all guests. He stated it would be ground breaking for an American ski mountain to have ski storage at the base of the mountain and a ski free experience from the parking garage to the base of the mountain. He added Aspen touts Vail as a truck stop with thousands of cars driving around like the Shriners convention and trucks putting on chains. Commissioner Rediker stated that it is obvious that there needs to be a limit to the number of ski racks. He added that this conversation is difficult as there are merchants and hotel operators which have different interests. A group which is not being represented is the general day visitor guest. One or two ski racks should be more than enough throughout the day. Greg Spencer stated that at full occupancy at the Sebastian, there are over 1,000 skis which need to be distributed in about an hour to an hour and half which is hard logistically. Jeff Babb stated that at Mountain Plaza they have to bring all the skis up in the morning because it is not known who will be coming and when in the morning. The racks are taken away as they are emptied and brought back in the afternoon. Commissioner Kurz asked to Staff to get feedback from Council on making this a CUP and include code enforcement and the Fire Department into the conversation. The Commission discussed that the intent is not to regulate the use of public ski racks 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) Page 7 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 24, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 5 minutes 6. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 5 minutes 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Sections 11-7-15, Public Parking and Loading Signs for Private Property, Vail Town Code, and 11-7-16, Informational and Directional Sign for Public Parking on Private Property, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110021) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-0 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: Cartin SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6-0-0 10. Information Update Commissioners Kurz and Pierce are not able to attend the October 10th hearing. Bill Gibson explained that the Vail Village Town House District was being tabled to October 24th to allow for several HOAs to review the proposed regulations. Town Council has asked Staff to bring forward a discussion on a historic district or historic designation for properties in Vail Village prior to reviewing this new zone district. 11. Adjournment MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 8 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 10, 2011 1:OOpm TOWN OFVAIt 1) TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Henry Pratt Bill Pierce Luke Cartin Michael Kurz John Rediker Tyler Schneidman Pam Hopkins Chairman Pratt opened the meeting and declared that a quorum was not present to conduct a public hearing. No actions were taken on any items. 20 minutes 1. 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. ( PEC 110053) Applicant: William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 60 minutes 2. 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: 60 minutes 3. 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: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 4. 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, Page 1 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 24, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. Approval of September 26, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published October 7, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 24, 2011 1:OOpm TOWNDFVAIL ` TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Kurz John Rediker Tyler Schneidman Bill Pierce Henry Pratt Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins MEMBERS ABSENT None SITE VISITS None 20 minutes 1. 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: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 7-0-0 Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum and forwarded the Design Review Board's recommendation that variances be granted for the applicant's original garage design (4:12 roof pitch). Mrs. Francis, representing the applicant, stated that there was a steep driveway condition on the site which she believed warranted the variances for the proposed garage addition and new driveway. Commissioner Pierce noted his support of the applicant's revised garage design (2:12 roof pitch). Commissioner Pratt asked for additional information about the Design Review Board's recommendation. Bill Gibson explained the Design Review Board's recommendation was in response to their belief that the 4:12 pitch roof was architecturally compatible and allowed for roof materials other than built up tar and gravel. Page 1 There was no public comment. 20 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11 -6 -3A -1c, Height, Business identification signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clearance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110055) Applicant: Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Approved with Condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 7-0-0 1. This sign variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for the awning sign. 2. This variance shall be granted to all businesses located on the north facade at the Lodge Promenade. Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum and outlined the Design Review Board's recommendation of a variance approval for awning height. Commissioner Pratt asked if the photo in Attachment B was a rendering of the proposed awning design. Rachel Dimond responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pratt explained that the awning was differing in design from the other awnings. Leah Mayer, representing the applicant, provided details on the proposed awning and explained that all awnings on the subject fagade are significantly different. There was no public comment. 45 minutes 3. 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: Recommendation of approval with modification(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6-1-0 (Pratt opposed) 1. The proposed regulations shall be amended to establish outdoor ski staging as an accessory use only, not a conditional use. 2. Design review approval of outdoor ski staging shall be valid for one year. 3. An additional provision shall be added to only allow the amount of outdoor ski staging necessary to operate the business. 4. Section 11-7-17 shall be amended to be Section 11-7-18. Page 2 5. The duration of use section shall be amended to allow outdoor ski staging from 6am until the close of the associated business. 6. Outdoor ski staging shall be permitted without any design review approval until December 18, 2011, after which design review shall be required. 7. By May 1, 2014, the PEC and Town Council shall review the outdoor ski staging regulations to evaluate the program and determine if amendments should be explored. Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum with a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Hopkins stated that the regulations should be a short-term solution with a set end time until a permanent solution is established. She expressed concern about this use detracting from the beautiful village as it will be occurring outside the establishments. Commissioner Kurz expressed that the Commission requested regulations be written as a conditional use permit. He inquired as to the applicability of including a sunset time period in the regulations as suggested by Commissioner Hopkins. Commissioner Hopkins expressed that there should be a goal in the regulations that encourages the users of this use to seek a better solution than outside use of space. She believes this is a great customer service that will flourish and she believes that future improvements to the concept should be employed as they are found. She is concerned that this use will detract from the village. She pointed out the amount of time focused on newspaper rack designs, streetscape, etc. Commissioner Pratt asked for clarification regarding the limitation on the height of structures in the proposed regulation. Rachel Dimond clarified that the six-foot height limit did not apply to tents. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the ability to place a time frame on this use if it were to become an accessory use. Commissioner Cartin stated he sees two separate issues regarding hotel verse commercial ski rental establishments. He suggested that the requirements include removal of this use from outside the business by 5 or 5:30 verse 7pm. Commissioner Rediker asked several questions. He inquired with regard to the definition of a retail establishment with rentals. He expressed a concern that there will be a rush for retail establishments to provide this service. He said we may want to narrow the definition of which establishments can offer this service. He suggested that there be a time frame on all approvals. He stated concern about some limitation on the number of racks and the ski yard beginning to look like an outdoor bazaar. He also expressed concern about the enforcement of the aesthetics section of the proposed regulations. He asked if it would be practical to have the racks manned, as it could be costly for smaller businesses. He suggested that a height limitation may be necessary Page 3 for tents. He said he understands why lodges need this use, but is concerned about retail establishments and ski shops providing this service. Johannes Faessler, representing the Sonnenalp, stated that Staff has done a good job establishing regulations for a service the Sonnenalp has been providing for over 20 years. He suggested that the allowed timeframe for operations be left more flexible as his racks are pushed into the store in the retail aisles just before closing. He also stated that one cannot assume that all the skis are going to be picked up the next day as some are being pulled and brought back to the lodge for the guest's departure. He agreed with Commissioner Hopkins that there is probably a better solution out there, but he does not believe this use will go away. He is concerned that there is no commercial ski storage permitted on the first floor which forces this use outside of establishments. He suggested that the retail surrounding Eaton Plaza may be a good area to allow commercial ski storage as they are largely not open in the summer due to removal from the village core. Lance Thompson, representing the Sebastian, stated his business's ability to accommodate any time frame for having the skis put away. Adam Hart, representing the Double Diamond, inquired as to the allowable sign area. He stated that having the racks outside in the evening allows him to accommodate more customers as he places the racks on the first floor of the rental area at night. Jeff Babb, representing Vail Resorts operations, spoke to his ability to have the skis placed away by the 7 pm time frame. He spoke to the need to have the racks manned and he asked that 6 square feet of signage be considered in the regulations. He spoke to how Vail Resorts allows for other entities to come into the ski yard to utilize the space. Johannes Faessler inquired as to how the approval of these applications will occur as ski season is fast approaching. Rachel Dimond responded that should the use be permitted as an accessory use subject to design review only, review by the DRB could occur on November 16, as second reading of an ordinance could occur as quickly as November 15. Commissioner Kurz, suggested that an accessory use was appropriate, sign size of 6 square feet was appropriate, a provision for a revisiting the regulations after three ski seasons. He added that providing for a 30 day amnesty to start the ski off to get your plan approved. Commissioner Rediker stated he is in favor of extended ski rack storage outside, 6 square feet of signage, and approval on a annual basis. He stated he would like to see a statement that no more racks shall be permitted that is necessary for the operation of the business. He said he believes that a sunset clause that would terminate the regulations in three years may be too short based on the investments that will be made by businesses. Page 4 Commissioner Hopkins stated that she was only looking for a provision to revisit the regulations to make improvements after three ski seasons. Commissioner Cartin expressed a concern that the first floor being allowed for storage of racks could entice people to use the outdoor space and aisles to start a new business. Adam Hart of the Double Dimond asked about provisions prohibiting the blocking of store fronts. Commissioner Pratt stated he believes it is important to not limit the approvals to one year, but to call-up an approval if there is a problem. He stated six square feet of signage is appropriate but maybe more should be allowed for logos. He would recommend that certain establishments receive Staff approval if they have been operating without problems. 45 minutes 4. 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: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6-1-0 (Cartin opposed) Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Kathy Langenwalter, local architect, spoke to the examples that were selected by Staff and how they exhibit the topic being discussed. She made herself available for questions. Commissioner Pierce noted that the proposed amendments are what the Commission had requested Staff to prepare. Bill Gibson further clarified that the basement GRFA deduction is separate from the other GRFA deduction. The basement deduction is not intended to be blended with other credits like the garage deduction to artificially allow larger garages. Commissioner Cartin expressed concern about double deductions being applied to the same floor area. Commissioner Hopkins stated that this clarification makes sense and is needed. Commissioner Pratt expressed concern about designers "gaming" the system, but noted that the sample calculations demonstrated the case for the proposed amendments. Page 5 Bill Gibson reiterated that some existing homes will be allowed to become larger than under the current regulations, but only to the same extent already allowed for other homes in the same zone district. 60 minutes 5. 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/ Kristen Bertuglia ACTION: Tabled to November 14, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 Kristen Bertuglia made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Martin Haeberle stated that there is support for this countywide program in all communities except Eagle and Gypsum. Commissioner Pierce asked if a recommendation should be made at this time. Rachel Dimond suggested that this is the beginning of many hearings to inform the PEC prior to making any formal recommendations. Commissioner Hopkins stated that it is admirable to keep up with the game. She said that for now, education will help and then we can increase standards to be good stewards of the planet. Rachel Dimond stated that any architectural examples would be helpful to determine how many points are already accrued by new homes. Kristen Bertuglia stated that the Town conducted a cost analysis study and the increase in cost would be between 3% and 10%, depending on the structure of such a program. Martin Haeberle stated that construction is of high quality so Vail homes are already more efficient than the standard home in Denver. Commissioner Pierce stated that the size of driveways should be addressed when discussing heated driveways. He added that alternative sources of heating should be explored. Commissioner Hopkins stated that in addition, useless solar panels should not be permitted. Page 6 Commissioner Cartin stated that innovation should be split up with design, construction and those innovations contributing to longevity. He added that the Walking Mountains building in Avon is innovative, not just green to be green. Commissioner Pratt stated that you should not be able to buy GRFA as an incentive to be innovative. He added that points for solar panels should only be achieved when the panels lay flat on the roof and are integrated with the structure. He added that when building a house with snowmelt under ecoBuild, the fee was $80,000. Rachel Dimond stated that Staff may propose to eliminate the bonuses for snowmelted driveways including steeper grades and less snow storage. Kristen Bertuglia stated that the goal is to reduce heated space. Michael Kurz stated that the goal of local ecosystem health should be the primary goal. He stated its naive to think anything we do will affect local climate change. However, he stated that improving the gold medal trout status and similar items should be addressed specifically. He added the program is terrific, specifically the concept of providing incentives. Commissioner Cartin identified the gems paradox- the more efficient you become, the more you use resources. Martin Haeberle stated that many mechanical systems are a result of this paradox. Commissioner Kurz asked about studies on cost/square foot between a regular house and a LEED home, for example. Commissioner Hopkins stated in her experience, it can be an approximate 5% increase in cost. Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association stated you need criteria to give more points for buildings that build less square footage than what they are allowed to build. He added that the Town should understand how the regulations will affect cost. Warren Campbell mentioned that while the original owner may want the improvements, the next owner may wish to change the home, and thus, change how points have been achieved. Commissioner Pierce suggested not pushing for solar panels that don't produce energy. Kristen Bertuglia explained the efficiency requirements of a rebate program. 5 minutes 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of Page 7 designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110056) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 14, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 5 minutes 7. 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: Tabled to November 14, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 5 minutes 8. 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: Withdrawn 9. Approval of September 26, 2011 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 10.Approval of October 10, 2011 minutes MOTION: No action because hearing did not have quorum. 11. Information Update 12.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. Page 8 Community Development Department Published October 21, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 9 Ad Name: 7141314A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 24, 2011 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM 1:00Pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS L Your account number i,-;- 1 OP2P 33 PUBLIC WELCOME T 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Vail ■ -�y MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1 Lodge Promenade- 186 Gore Creek Drive 2.1107 Vail Valley Drive (GRFA amendments) 3.1397 Vail Valley Drive (GRFA amendmems) PROOF OF PUBLICATION 20 minutes 1 Arequest for the review of variances from Sec- tion 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail STATE OF COLORADO } gTown Code pursuant Chapter t,2-17 Variances gVail a,aggTown Code, to allow for the construction of a lowablewithin the aid,denttat foorka eaXcess of the at - and site cover- } SS. gross esi Vail das Schon. Film ated at g 1 nd selling forth details iBlock n COUNTY OF EAGLE } ega'lcanty (PE°"66 3' Applicant: William R. Aylesworth, represented by Steve Francis Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION SECOND VOTE: I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified20 minutes 2A request forth. review of a variance from Sec- tion 11 -6 -3A -1c, Height, Business identification igna in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper T God., des;oat,;ow haPhe 11 0 Varanc s Vail printed, in whole or in part and published in the County height � eara�ae a�ve'p s8 a way°', located at 186 Gore Creek Dnve (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation orthdelaisi�9e9 ad ith"To iPE�1,60")se11ng Appleaam Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously MMPlanner Rachel Dimond ACTION: and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 45 minutes 3 A request for s recommendation a the Vail Town Cou for prescribed regulation amendments to more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, Town ant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Code, to amend the regulation of indoor and and door ski storage, and seeing forth details in regard thpereb.(PEC110054) that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice Planner' Rachel Dimond ACTION: and advertisement as requested. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: ll advertisement ll 45 minutes 4 A request ora recommendation a the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section he calculation Amend - The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, 9reaaesilemiall0000rareaaonthelowestleveofa truct um that contains a garage in the Hillside 7 Residential Single -Family Residential, Two -Family only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Residential, and Two -Family PrimaryZSeconday Residenthetial Districts, Cil 0and setting forth details in re - Rule provision. ud Aaplcant'Town of Value) Panner: -Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND:VOTE: 60 minutes That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was 5A re es„°r a final recommendation to the Vail Town Co I for prescribed regulations amend- ents to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, published in the regular and entire issue of every Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to nprovide regulations that will implement sustainable umber of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 building and planning standards, and setting boli details in regard thereo. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said APlan r CTION: Rachel Dimond MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/21/2011 and 5 minutes 6 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed re ulations amendment, Amendment, Vail Town that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/21/2011 in pursuant to section 12-3-7, Code, to amend Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of the issue of said newspaper. designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, d sellm torch details in regard thereto- (PEC1100561 Applicant, Town of Vail Planner Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to November 14, 2011 In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5minutes 7 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town 10/24/2011. Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant o 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 ggg( �7 recommenddn to the Vail Town Council on amendments menproposed amendments to Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub -Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area (N6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Master Plan, coinage Townhouse( VT) related to a new Vail Villa Townhouse VVT District, and setting forth details in regard thereto - 0041) Vail Daily (P Cca t Town40, of Vail A pt, t: Town ns Vail Panner Bill Gibson Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for ACTION: TabletoNovember 14, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/24/2011. Council f mSCrarecomme regulations n s the Val Town Councl or bed regulations amendments, pursuant o Vail T 1 n Go Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Sections 11-7-15, Public Parking and Loading Signs for Private rnfoPmatio'n alaalnd Di ectionalTown ' Sigdn for Publsc Parking on Private Property, n re , Vail Town Code, and tong forth details gard IF, ereto- (PEC110021) A plicem Town of Vail Pannarer Bill Gibson ACTION: Withdrawn 9 Approval of September 26, 2011 minutes Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public MOTION:SECOND:VOTE: 10 Approval of October 10, 2011 minutes My November Commission expires. ber 1, 2015 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 1\ 11. Information Update 12 Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular 0If ice hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. I he public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Com munity Development Department. Please call (9 70) 479-2138 for additional information. PAMELA J SCWXTZ Sign language interpretation is available upon -hour notttcshon Please call (970) State of COlDrado 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information - Community Development Department Published October 21, 2011, in the Vail Daily. (7141314) Ad Name: 7093933A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, On October 24, 2011, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in Vail Daily consideration of: A request for the review of a variance from Section PROOF OF PUBLICATION 11-6-3A-1 c, Height, Business identification signs in Sign District 1, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of awnings with STATE OF COLORADO } less than eight (8) feet of minimum height clear - ance above pedestrianways, located at 186 Gore Creek Drive (The Lodge at Vail)/ Lots A, B, C, ISS Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110055) COUNTY OF EAGLE } Applicant: Tochter, LLC, represented by Leah KS Mayer Planner: Rachel Dimond I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-22, View Corridors, printed, In whole or In part and published in the County Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicantt: Town Vail therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously of Planner: Warren Campbell and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop - ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice 1� q g Sign language interpretation is available upon 24-hour Please and advertisement as re uested. q quest, with notification. call all 970-479-2356,Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, forrinformation. Published October 7, 2011, in the Vail Daily. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, (7093933) 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 10/7/2011 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/7/2011 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/24/2011. General Man ager/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 10/24/2011. 2M.&& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 PAMELA J SCWXTZ Notary Public State of Colorado