The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-0709 PECrowx of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 9, 2012 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 **Order and times of agenda items are subject to change** 60 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to amend the development review process, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120010) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to require restoration of watercourses and riparian areas, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120011) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to July 23, 2012 hearing 3. Approval of June 28, 2012 minutes 4. Information Update 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 6, 2012, in the Vail Daily. Page 1 0 rowN OF vain Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: July 9, 2012 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to amend the development review process (streamlining certain processes), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120010) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond PROBLEM STATEMENT AND GOALS At the June 25, 2012 hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission affirmed the following problem statement and goals (including an amendment to Goal #1 in bold): Problem Statement: The Town's first zoning code was adopted in 1969, and since then, the code has been amended hundreds of times. Most amendments were made one at a time and as a reactive response to a present concern. Forty years of amendments have taken a toll on the Town's zoning code, specifically the development review process. The processes required for various applications range from staff review to Town Council review, with variations on each process depending on the zone district. As a result, the development review process is complicated, confusing, fragmented and cumbersome. Further, in a recent community survey, respondents identified the development review process as complicated and lengthy. GOALS: In order to address the issues identified in the problem statement, the following are goals of this project: 1. Identify processes that may be amended and why. 2. Streamline the process and procedures for development review. 3. Ensure consistency among regulations and planning documents. 4. Increase efficiencies and cost savings in the development review process. 5. Eliminate outdated, ineffective and unnecessary provisions within the development titles. 6. Reaffirm existing policies and adopt new policies to clarify direction. 7. Ensure support from the community through public process. 8. Maintain the quality and safety of development in Vail. II. DISCUSSION ITEMS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES The following is a list of development review processes that should be evaluated to meet the goals of this project and other issues that will be discussed over numerous worksessions with the PEC: 1. Development Plan for establishment of Commercial Service Center District 2. Development Plan for Ski Base Recreation 1 District 3. Major and minor amendments to Special Development Districts 4. Major and minor amendments to development plan in Ski Base Recreation District 5. Major and minor amendments to development plan in Ski Base Recreation 2 District 6. General Circulation Plan in Arterial Business District 7. Conditional use permits and amendments 8. Certificate of Occupancy process 9. Internal review of projects, including planning, public works, fire and building review 10. Determination of similar use 11. Major and minor exterior alterations 12. Design review board determination versus Staff determination 13. Appeal process 14. Architectural compatibility 15. Reduction in technical language 16. Definitions 17. Summary of current trends in development review 18. Fee schedules 19. Cost considerations 20. Conceptual review process 21. Combined DRB/Building Permit process In order to break down the extensive list above, Staff has provided a summary of four items from the above list. Below each review process are details on why the process might be amended, as well as pros and cons to amendment. If a process is identified for amendment, Staff will prepare proposed text amendments for review and recommendation by the PEC. 1. Determination of Similar Use (land use is similar to existing and permitted) • Currently, the Vail Town Council makes a determination as to whether a new land use is similar to an existing land use, thus allowing it to be permitted or conditional like the listed land use. • This determination may be amended to allow the Planning and Environmental Commission to make the determination, as the PEC deals with land use specific determinations and would reduce the review time for applicants. • Pros: Town of Vail Page 2 • PEC review would allow the process to be noticed along with all other land use decisions being made. • The Town Council could call up the PEC decision if there is concern over the determination, thus not eliminating the Town Council role in the process. • The process would have a more stringent review time requirement, from no time requirement, to thirty (30) days, which would provide a more immediate response for applicants. • Amendment of the process would allow for a fee to be established, as this process is currently free, although it utilizes a lot of Staff resources. • Cons: • The Town Council would not have direct review of these requests. • There would be a review time requirement, which would require immediate review from the PEC, rather than an undetermined time frame by the Town Council, which allows flexibility in review. • Amendments achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 2. Exterior Alterations are required as follows: • In Public Accommodations (PA) (hotel properties), Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1), Lionshead Mixed Use -2 (LMU-2), Public Accommodations -2 (PA2) (the Roost Lodge) Districts: increase in dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee units, addition of 1,000 sq ft of commercial or common space, or projects with substantial off site impacts as determined by the administrator • In Commercial Core 1 (CC1), Commercial Core 2 (CC2) Districts, which are in Vail Village: a new building, addition or removal of any enclosed floor area, alteration of roofline, new or modified outdoor dining deck • All exterior alterations listed above require Staff review, Planning and Environmental Commission determination and Design Review Board determination (never Staff determination). • A more uniform listing of what an exterior alteration is for PA, LMU-1, LMU-2, PA - 2, CC1, and CC2 would allow for uniform review of exterior alterations with less complicated review process. • Specifically, Staff recommends an exterior alteration be: increase in dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee units, addition of 1,000 square feet of commercial space, or projects with substantial off-site impacts as determined by the administrator. Staff recommends that addition or modification of outdoor dining decks, increase in residential floor area (that does not add a new unit) and modification of rooflines be removed from the requirements of an exterior alteration in CC1 and CC2, and instead be reviewed by the Design Review Board or even Staff approved when not changing the architectural design of the building or having any impacts to the site or adjacent sites. As an example, the PEC recently reviewed the increase in floor area in CC1 for new bay windows. These applications were required to be reviewed by the PEC and the DRB, and most likely would be Staff approved in other districts. The review time could be reduced from 6-8+ weeks to 1-2 weeks, and cost could be reduced from $900 to $250 for the applicant. • Pros: Town of Vail Page 3 • The uniformity of exterior alterations would allow for a standardization of regulations, thus reducing the confusion in regulations. • Since the design review board is already required to review all exterior alterations in this district, they would still have purview over exterior design issues. Staff would be able to determine any requirements such as parking, housing mitigation, etc. that the PEC typically imposes based on Staff recommendation. • Cons: • The PEC would have less purview over certain aspects of changes in CC1 and CC2 Districts. • There would be no neighbor notice for outdoor dining areas or roofline modification in CC1 and CC2. • Amendments achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 3. DRB applications associated with development plans in the Housing (H) & Commercial Service Center (CSC) Districts and exterior alterations in PA, PA -2, CC1, CC2, LMU-1 & LMU-2 Districts • Currently, the above requires Staff review and Design Review Board determination. However, Staff believes that any application that meets the standard for Administrative review from Section 12-11-4C-3, Staff Approval, Vail Town Code, should be considered for Administrative review. This would reduce review time from up to a month to one week for applicants. Section 12-11-4C-3, Staff Approval, Vail Town Code, states the following: 3. Staff Approval: The administrator may approve any of the following applications: a. Any application to modify an existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, including, but not limited to, exterior building finish materials (e.g., stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas, satellite dishes, windows, skylights, minor commercial facade improvements, and other similar modifications,- b. odifications,b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a condominium association, if applicable; c. Any application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site, and d. Any application for site improvements or modifications including, but not limited to, driveway modifications, site grading, site walls, installation of accessory structures or recreational facilities. • Pros: • The review process would be streamlined for minor changes, allowing an Administrative review with a quick response. • The DRB and Town Council would be able to call up Staff determinations if such approval was of concern. Town of Vail Page 4 • Public notification of such changes would not change- there would be no specific notification of neighbors as there is not today. • Cons: �mendments There would be no public hearing on these items. • achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 4. Staff approvable Design Review applications, including modifications to buildings consistent with architectural design, modification to landscaping and site improvements • Staff determination only • Certain design review applications that are currently Staff approvable could be amended to only require review with a building permit or no design review approval at all, specifically because of the simplistic nature of the applications or the repetitive nature of applying for design review, then a building permit review, which can double review time. • The following applications could potentially be bundled with a building permit application and if no building permit is required, not have design review at all: • Window changes that meet certain criteria • Deck replacement within allowable deck areas • Door replacement • Repaints in certain color palates • Construction related signage • Minor changes to approved plans • Same -for -same applications that currently require design review in order to document existing conditions, including all repairs • Pros: • Staff review will still occur with building permit. • The timeframe for review of minor projects will be cut in at least half. • No review will be required for repairs and same -for -same, which can be confusing for the public, and can increase timeframes for completion of projects. • The public will be entrusted to submit applications when necessary, and not required to submit same -for -same as a result of a few owners who use this situation to avoid permits. • Cons: • Same -for -same review will not occur, and people who use this situation for doing work without permit will be harder to catch. �mendments Joint property owner sign -off will not be required • achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask relevant questions, and provide input on the discussion items outlined Town of Vail Page 5 in this memorandum hearing. IV. ATTACHMENTS Further, Staff requests this item be tabled to the July 23, 2012 A. Article on Hilton Head Island, SC from Planning Magazine B. Zoning Map C. Community Survey comments on Community Development Department Town of Vail Page 6 i re . ,r ,1 Having more than doubled in population to 38,000 today—and with 2.3 million visi- tors a year—the town recently decided that it was time to reconsider its LMO. The or- dinance had undergone several annendments over the years to acco€n€nodate development pressures juggling building design and landscaping standards, density limitations, and infrastructure expansion while trying to maintain a unique community where the built environment blends with nature. However, the UAO had been written primarily for new development, and Hilton Head Island was nearing build out. It was be- coming increasingly evident that the entire philosophy of the LMO needed to change, in part to accommodate today's redevelop- ment needs. Strict code interpretation aid limitations on growth or expansion were no longer desired. Instead, the town sought an atmosphere of partnership, flexibility, and simplicity. This was especially true for co€r€€nercial development. The town receives an average of 46 applications for commercial pernuts annually and has a review staff of eight to process the applications. The commercial permitting process is the most complex pro- cess among all the applications, and there- fore the most in need of simplification. In 2011, the town council appointed an LMO rewrite committee made up of lo- cal residents to revise the code. One of the charges to the cornrnittee was to simplify the commercial permitting process. Other per- mits will be considered for strea€mining in the future. Terry Ennis and Bob Gentrzler, both of thein retirees and year-round residents, volunteered to work with staff to lead them through a major process mapping effort. Before retiring, both Ennis and Gentzler 34 1 Planning February 2012 as a resort ,pment and These pro- they were had worked with several international com- panies to institute work sinnplification prac- tices.'l'he town's director of community de- velopment committed significant staff time to this seven-month effort, which began in March 2011. Simplifying workflow Work simplification practices became a means to an end ---namely a more stream- lined, predictable system that is focused on the customer. As the LMO rewrite commit- tee came to learn, those practices involve analyzing and simplifying the workflow by identifying priorities; removing redundan- cies, errors, and defects; and focusing on im- provement efforts. The basic principles of this effort were that all work can be represented as a pro- cess with an interrelated series of steps and that all processes can be improved. Mapping and analyzing all the steps, tasks, and trans- actions leads to improvement and then to better predictability, which results in a more streamlined, predictable system focused on the customer. The rewrite co€nnnittee followed a series of steps to simplify the permit system. First, it formed a core team to work directly with Emmis and Gentzler, including LMO official Teri Lewis, development review administra- tor Heather Colin, mc€>, and comprehensive planning manager Shawn Colin, rucn. As the town's communn€ty development deputy di- rector, I was also part of the core teann. The group then identified goals and strategies. These included: ® assigning a staff member to act as advocate in forming a partnership with in- dividual applicants—expanding the role and authority of the case manager to one of a project manager ® increasing predictability by reducing the number of times that applicants must appear before a board and minimizing the number of special exception land uses rely- ing on conditions and board approval ® enhancing flexibi ity by following a how -to -make -it -work approach instead of merely examining each project for code compliance streamlining the process (snaking it one process/one permit instead of a multi- step process with different permits) by reduc- ing review times, requiring projects to be a priority for all staff, reducing the number of handoffs, consolidating forms, and allowing submission of building permit applications during review of the site plan, not after making the LMO and the process user-friendly by educating the applicant on the process and code, avoiding technical language, and communicating continuously with applicants to explain necessary plan re- visions N eliminating subjectivity on code inter- pretation by conveying consistent infonna- tion and quickly resolving design conflicts IN computerizing the entire process and putting it online Mapping the`as-is' process The core team mapped out the current process fro€n tine first moment an inquiry is made by a potential applicant, through re- view, permitting, construction, and obtain- ing a certificate of occupancy. We did this simply enough, by putting sticky notes on rolls of large paper. Each note answered who, what, when, where, why, and how questions. Creating this flowchart on paper allowed for easy revision acid a better visual device to compare with a Generation I map (the first map of the new system) dur- ing the education of the applicant. The flow- chart was then verified by the staff members who actually reviewed and approved these applications. More thatn 60 members of the public re- viewed the "as -is snap" and answered ques- tions about their experience—both positive and negative—with the existing process. The participants—board members, council mennbers, land planners, architects, contrac- tors, lawyers, property owners, managers of gated communities, and utility general managers—sometimes had very different perspectives. In all, we recorded about 80 comnnents and suggestions. The conclusion: The participants had shHilar goals to those reviousl ac ; l 'f d p y Cert re by the core team. council when publicly owned properties are The team teen organized the comments involved. Others that may need to be kept into categories focused on the approach, in the loop are other town departments, the process change, potential code amendments, general public, special interest groups, and Code interpretation issues, revisions to apph- various experts, both internal and external. cation fortes, and public education needs. The team th d' Mapping the new process "rite core team next temapped the penni ting process, taking into account all die pu lie comments and suggestions about pros changes that would achieve the establishe goals. All but three of the Sp comments wete usedthe new process. The new process was then shared with many of the same citizens and staff to ver* that it would wont. Fhis visual flowchart o the Generation 1 process will be kept in conference room for future revisions and t Help in the education of applicants. The core team also created a Generation 2, idealized design. ----as if the process were being created from scratch. This exercise resulted in a flowchart that simulated a com- pletely virtual process. The goal here was to allow applicants to conduct all permit -related business by com- puter, including submissions, meetings, re- ceiving permits, viewing project status, com- munication, and so on. This would reduce paperwork, time, and cost to the applicant; provide transparency for the general public; and provide an already built-in system for record retention, Managing the system Next carne a crucial step: using the RACI technique to identify those who are respon- sible, accountable, in need of consultation, and in need of information, These are peo- ple who provide expert opinions and profes- sional guidance in their specialty areas. Responsible parties were defined as staff members who conduct project review, such as engineers, die floodplain administrator, the building plans reviewer, the urban de- signer, the natural resources specialist, plan- ners, fire marshal, state and federal agencies, Utility companies, and private architectural review boards. The accountable parry is the project manager. Those being consulted are prop- erty owners associations, neighbors or com- munity members, and boards and conitnis- sions when involved. Those to be kept informed include the media, management staff, and the town manager, town attorneys, and the town en ascussed key issues m die success of die proposed Generation 1 pro- cess.,Fhey concluded that the key to success- t- ful implementation of the new process was b- identiff member a "single process owner"—the ess staember who has sole accountability for d the project. That person's duties include; na being the only point of contact for die applicant from beginning h M orienting the applicant, conveying ex- fy pectations and the reasons for requirements f M identifying all issues up front to min- a Mize last-minute problems oM acting as a hub of communication on the project filtering review comments from other staff so that they will be understandable to a layperson acting as the go -to person with the authority to make decisions in the field and in the office so that the application keeps moving through the process M negotiating and resolving conflicts early in the process (including determining priorities in conflicting staff concerns or code interpretations and working with other staff and the applicant to keep on schedule) coordinating site visits actively pursuing outside agency ap- provals working to ensure the process is trans- parent to the public overseeing any community impact and sensitivity issues ® maintaining all data to ensure that in- formation is properly recorded and retained ® continuouslysharingexperiences with c other project managers and management The team also deterniined the support needed to implement these changes. They concluded that a development review ad- mixiistrator must oversee the proem for n the first several projects to ensure that dee process is working and that other staff o members recognize the project manager's a authority. The team also noted that supervi- sors need to keep projects as a top priority a for their own staff and that the LMO official p or bun di ng official must quickly resolve awry staff disagreements over code interpretation.. Finally, it was clear that state and federal agencies needed to work with the new pro- cess in a timely manner. Implementation and future steps�f Once the new Generation 1 and 2 flowchart maps were verified with stakeholders and I� staff .i review n August 2011, the core team identified implementation steps to be taken in the following months: ® Initiate uxunediate process changes that do not involve code amendments. IIs ® Amend and adopt a revised L.AdO. Separate out ally procedural changes and 11 place them in a procedures manual to I� avoid having to revise when processes are changed, i I 0 Make additional process changes that [� result from future rewriting of die LIMO,s: ® Produce public education tools and techniques (speeches, media releases, bro- chures, web page revision, media articles). I Find ways to better educate the public when code or procedural improvements are made --minimizing a public perception of town hall as discouraging growth. E the new process. ® Revise the town website to allow for interactive computer forms and electronic submissions on our webpage. Invest in new software to implement the online permitting system. Continuously monitor and upgrade the process. Seek input from recent appli- cants on possible improvements. ® Deep training staff. Implementation of the Generation 1 permitting process began in September and has been extremely well received by town residents. The biggest. impacts so far include more digital submissions of small applica- tions and die reduction in the ntunber of plan revisions from an average of three to >ne. Most of the Generation 2 virtual permit changes will take place after the purchase of new software that can handle larger proj- ects. This effort is also beginning to change a heg�ative public perception of town govcrn- ment frons one of "stop all developrnene, to ne of advocacy and encouragement, It must lso be emphasized that improvements to rhe process should never cease just because ll die irnplernentation steps have been com- leted. Constant monitoring and adjustment will ensure its continued success. Jill Foster is the deputy director of cornmu pity deveioprnenr in Flilton head Island, South Carolina. Arnerican Planning Association 35 n. C C O 0 E O u O Q to (o a Ncu L L +� 4' O `� v 4- CU (o a••' to -0 � to Z O Q Q ,�, Q U Q c L L N 7 CCW -0 O m Q LJ > N +L O N to vi M L-0 O � L L � 'O LO cu CU � � Q Q +� (LO L 7> O LCL Q 4, L� NN� O Q E -_ �j Q Q L � O U C O cuL i` Q- O L ai CL M> _. Q Y a� O (o > u Q W U 7 cu aQ fB (o N C N > p V � 4" Q- C E N C (B C E C 4J c Q a -I L C 0 U Q -0 > � '� L 7 f° O 4J W u 0 (ti. v v v (o v M O +, o o O +� (a > 0 Q CU O CaC � ago � .c O o .0 v, O cu U N to N L O d N N Q N Q (a vi N m L C m O Q O W CU o � aJ L o U o Q to v= u C o Q L +� t +� U v U > > 4� Q X N O O (o O Y L O C N >- � Q U Q N .LAN 3: to o O Q Qn �� N Q O vi W O L dA � >� L L m Q (0 Qn N N WD C CU M u O O Z -0 U� f0 •C N N = O O L cu U L C O N > C Y C > u j, O Ca O Q f(I 0 O N O C t fB 7 C CU -0 N Ca Q C O +' N > O aai O Q (o (o U O Q o41 CJ cu =3 cu M +' v N t v c cu Q-0 v 00 � v 4J > v v O N L O O-0 a„I (uo � +' O C L E > N •'n \ LJ C C f0 (Oo vOi LJ OD cu U Q = � L LO C Q Q M W 4' c Q d L O =3 7 Q C N CO •� N = L CU OU C- cu (o -04 O Qn LO > u O •> O Q CQn U v .� 44 O-0 � u C N 4- O m � v O O (o to 4 J > v v +J dA O O •Qn t 4 J 7 N O vi u N Q Q Q u N (t. N > M O O C C 4' a„I L Q m N L L V1 L Q Qn O O N O dA N ! M Q a vi 4' �' `� L C O N Qn O aD N E 0 � � u �-0 u N O v `n � t H a vi Qn O � c Q O >` L Q U � V1 Q L V1 � " O U L > cu E CU > Q � O > } C (0 M U 7 O QC C N U QU cu cu > C O O -0 t C +J O C Q 4' 7 L C C L m +' Qn C C t _ vi C N N to O. vi O U O (0 (0 C O N N > 4J vi +' 7 -0 N N O •� C � a N -0 N = C OQn E Q O-0-0-0 WD C C vi (0 7 N L N -0 C _ O 4' 4J on N to O 7 (0 u -5 +j t X } a -.I (�0 N 4 J t +� L Q N Q L O U u O dA •v N O M M dA Q �; u Vl o .0 f° o v v O m Q Q _ •(o '`—' (o v� v v 4' Q v v Z E c -0 v c cu 7 Q Q 4- Q 4" an 4J C N Q 4 J '- O O N to Y N C L O = = to cu O U " N N O - M O U Q •L N 4J N N +J > 'n (o m L — O c C 4 J p N C C ,O L N c Cl-> +, V1 O N CL L > iJ L L U C U L `� (0 vi +J +J m O LJ (� O O O O O N •Q O O +' Q C O +JFF m C: > -E CL u .O C O o O cu +� C O> v �+ mm to m C v u+ o `^ v 'Lu Q� 3 r • C N u m 4 J � � C o L O V1 U u � N Q mQn (O N N L `nCU " vi C N •� -0� +J 7 c O N O N t � N O -0 O O `� `On C C7� C n > L n N O ?i N +•I N C M c Qn C O Q L +J O N +J N `n 0 L 4 C } to J O C CU U N� L O Q_ L O CL -0 +, vi > C vi � +' O-0 C OU N u LJ -0 N LO vi Co 4O O N a= Y LJ O � O 4= .L O � to U Q p w W Qn U � U Qn Q � +J to +� m N E �( W Q v L c v to an Y M L L O O � v u ^ E ¢i N vi N V1 p v C (o C— v � O N 4 JQn N NE to E C U L N vi +' O O-0 N O 4 J U O > C O Q N N OM � *' M U L O N —_ — vi C Q C N +J L Q� O L N� vi C 'n > O (o C p E O N +, C p 7 io O p N O N 7 c c O O vi +J U -I U Q CO V1 W V1 CO U _� W L 4. -0 2 L — O — (0 U a -.I Z Q C O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L QJ I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L Ln Qj Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ,.n W W W W W W W W W W W W W ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O Q to (o a i 3 0 C c 0 C aCU L r aj E — E O h W O O LU c O O4-1 >, LU U C O O LU L Y f0 U LU m O 7 u U Q m 4� Q. Ca on 4- O CLD LU cr- O 4J > LU > Z E LU cu -0 U C vi O (a LU CL u 4� L to LU O —`1 Eu 4J Qn C �t LU 00 to m 4-C }J L 7 O Lf0 LU > U t > p L �/1 L O O N LJ 4' —0 tB � O vi p to LU vi v C - L� Qn O U LU U t > i N 4 LU = � > NO O -0 O E O Ln CU Qn mV1 LU v o 4� i Q. +J LU LU Q- N LU CU L Q. 0 0 +� LU 3 U>, N O > L 4J } CL p v �O N > > 4J LU i U `^ t t LU v LJ H vi H > L LU LU pC L LU Q.LU Q. (n M (.n LU t = a-' LU -0 CLD C C f0 C 4J Y LU O U Q. LU LU L U O m 4� Q LU LJ -0 p U 4. LU N O Q Q Ca L }� a LU Q. w LU O LU Y LU N LU C N 4J C f0 LU � Y LU 4. C O E 10 -0 -0 -0 -0 C C C C vi LU C LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU O O LU O m E E E E E E E E E U L L I I a L I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I C CO CO CO CO cLo OL I L I L a"1 I L LU N I L L LU I L I I L L LU LU O LU m m O m O m Q m m m vi -0 LU 4� O vi WD � LU LU LU LU LU LU O LU LU LU C LU LU LU LU LU — C Y N Y N u C L U cu O O C LU to > Q. to C CU _= O f0 CLD LU LU C co o LU C: O — p p 4J � 7 C O Q CLD p N LU - U LU U � LU C Q �' = L 4- O CLD O Q v O O N 0 C c E Q a t LU vi CL `^ 7 O Q O Ln O LU Q X U C 3 LU Ln Lu a, Lu a�J cV via� LU > OL O co vi cu C O E 0 0L U > 4J O CL N O O OL E a -a � Q Q 7 O = O CU L f0 m 4. .- U 41 O QC a�j O O N LU � to O f0 C •E — a CC C LU •Vl "cu lu cu � a..l LU co Q � E Q. co - �O O u O co O cu O-0 -0i - L CU O O O U— N +' N Ncu O LU m 4� LU 4 J O O 7 ,} '} 3 C 10 +J 4 J L L ONC cu N U m C O • C p C O C > O co U V1 +' 4J } LU C O O t-0 LU t Q O-0 1 Q U� co O LU +J N N— t aO E W C L L p Q N L — O L O m OC > O LU C C C LU -0 to t vi N W O LU U _ co t O O � co L L O C p m +� � Q. LU > m O m C m LU -0 M O L O O N LU -0 U LU Q OCU N Q 7 c�'o U LCU 4J m Q. co N +J C L f0 4J C i O O OCU +� U co to LU �' i LU V1 L � L 4- (0 L 0 u N N � N m N LO C 4n L CU O -0 U N cu Ln 4. LU LU L -c " >- cu m L O O +' 2i� p t t LL m to — Q. — O H 4 H C O E 10 -0 -0 -0 -0 C C C C LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU O O O O E E E E E E E E E E E E L L I I L I L I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I '+—,I CO CO CO CO I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I L I I L L LU LU LU LU m m m m m m m m m m m m LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU LU � � � 0 E E k \ � K A41 � \ E E B E \ ƒ / § % 4-1E u c / u } { \ / / \ ) f \ \ $ § toJ ) CLƒ \ } 2 § \ E j / / 2 \ \ / / CU Ef \ 9 / k 0 E E / \ 2 4� ƒ 4-1E $ { / cu / 9 k El e \ / \ \ / / 2 k cu � y { 2 / CL _ § M \ E _ / / ( . -0 ƒ \ / k to 3 ) d E \ = / / to / \ / § \ { E \ k / > CL k / / k 7 \ \ = ƒ 9 � / ƒ e \ u R % pCU _ 2 = 0 i E c § 2 / / » ® e > / o e u � / § 2 $ \ \ 2 \ \ \ / E / E \ cu 7a2 m cuu_ E # CL / 2 \ \ E & _ E c k \ ƒ 0 7 >- to / ƒ � [ / \ U- = u > \ 2 \ \ L / / 2 2 2 / \ 2 \ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 u / \ / 2 _ @ z °e n \ G � / E ƒ > e e \ \ / e e 4 = R E e e § — > » » I » ®0 ® E » » e » � / ®� » E c E } ƒ t 2 k e e e e \ o e e e 2 » e LU u = / 2 § E E 9 g E E L E e E % e ) f / °f O O ° O O O / O E $ / W 0 o _ tom 4�: z § ) \ ® ° t 7 4/ / / E \ ) = / > _ / I u § e / } { \ / / \ ) f \ \ $ § toJ ) CLƒ \ } 2 § \ E j / / 2 \ \ / / CU Ef \ 9 / k 0 E E / \ 2 4� ƒ 4-1E $ { / cu / 9 k El e \ / \ \ / / 2 k cu � y { 2 / CL _ § M \ E _ / / ( . -0 ƒ \ / k to 3 ) d E \ = / / to / \ / § \ { E \ k / > CL k / / k 7 \ \ = ƒ 9 � / ƒ e \ u R % pCU _ 2 = 0 i E c § 2 / / » ® e > / o e u � / § 2 $ \ \ 2 \ \ \ / E / E \ cu 7a2 m cuu_ E # CL / 2 \ \ E & _ E c k \ ƒ 0 7 >- to / ƒ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 e e e e e e e e e e e e e » » » » » » » » » » » » » s e e e e e e e e e e e e e E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Lu O O O O O O O O O O O O O ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � � � 0 E E k � \ K A41 � § � E E S / E Z / \ / / e e u o k R a = _ \ " CU 2 4-1 / 3 3 e m ) ƒ 3 Ea t� E k k \ _ cu S \ e e e \ / § \ 0 0 0 / / - e __ ° E $ / \ ƒ / E # � 9 / Qn� \ \ CL @ = to E / 7 CL \ 2 ® \ > 41 w k k \ / § E -0 = o 2 = y to / < cu E s � E e » E @ 5 e = s E $ g o cu f CL / E / ) \ ° -0 cu \ aQn \ = E 2E•to e \ $\ t e E - 2 \ / -0 / ® _ •- \ 0 ƒ § / / / u / / ) \ _ / ° / % § § 2 ° / -0» R E 2 z e § ) / _ % \ § / / / 0 / t 2 -0 " / e § R X = 9 » $ t• ) E ' CU e CU ) / f c q .CL E , \ / / m Qn 3 / Qn 2 E t d ( CL E / k } / _ � = E Ln / E Z / � \ �t \ CL / e e u k R t \ 4-1 a / ) ƒ 3 &_ _ _ _ S e e e e § 0 0 0 0 � \ �t \ CL rowx of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 25, 2012 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado 81657 **Order and times of agenda items are subject to change** MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker Susan Bird Michael Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT Pam Hopkins Luke Cartin 60 minutes 1. A request for the review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for a healthcare facility and a public building and grounds, to allow for the redevelopment of the Town of Vail municipal site with a medical research, rehabilitation, and office building and a municipal office building located at 75 and 111 South Frontage Road West/ Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120012) Applicant: Vail MOB, LLC, represented by Triumph Development and Town of Vail, represented by Consilium Partners, Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to July 23, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 Warren Campbell made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Mike Foster, of Triumph Development, reviewed the medical office building components, including the footprint of the building, the floor plate layouts, parking and future growth opportunities. He reviewed the parking report and how the parking is laid out in the complex. Commissioner Kurz asked about the estimated occupancy of the medical building, including all staff. Mike Foster stated he did not recall the number of staff and would bring that information to a future hearing. Commissioner Kurz asked how many parking spaces are allocated for the building. Mike Foster responded 248 spaces. Tim Losa, Zehren and Associates, stated that this has been a huge project in terms of coordination with all the different stakeholders. He showed each floor plate of the medical office building and detailed all of the programming that occurs on each floor and in each space. He showed sections of the buildings to explain general height and floor plate size. He then showed the frontage road improvement plans and circulation plan for the subject site. He showed the parking floor plates and asked for feedback from the Commission on the parking study. He then Page 1 reviewed the criteria necessary for approval of a parking requirement reduction. He reviewed the neighboring factors surrounding the project. He reviewed the zoning parameters of the project. Warren Campbell clarified what was included in the gross square footage of the medical office building. He also explained the criteria for evaluating a reduction in parking. He added that the most recent example of a parking reduction request utilizing Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provision, Vail Town Code, was the Timber Ridge redevelopment project.. Commissioner Pierce stated that parking should be explained in a more detailed presentation. Commissioner Kurz asked about parking management, not just parking. He said parking demand will increase as is the nature of the business plan to increase business. Mike Foster stated that he was prepared to discuss parking, but not parking management. He added that he would include greater detail on the parking management at a future hearing. Commissioner Kurz stated his concern for traffic, a housing mitigation plan, growth, etc. Mike Foster clarified that there is expansion space that is being counted for parking requirements. Commissioner Pierce asked for an explanation as to why the reduction of parking should be allowed. Mike Foster stated that there will be a certain number allocated to the Town of Vail, then another number dedicated to the MOB, then the rest of the spaces are shared. He stated the different uses will share parking spaces. He added the hospital has a program to shuttle employees from down valley instead of taking cars. Commissioner Pierce stated that the Commission needs to know the innovative processes that will be used to reduce parking demand. Commissioner Hopkins stated she wants to understand how many staff, how many patients are on site at any time in order to effectively review the parking demand. Mike Foster stated half of the doctors will be on site and the other half will be off-site doing surgery. Commissioner Kurz added that he wants to know how the new building will shift workers from the hospital to the new building and what parking may be freed up on the WMC site. Commissioner Pratt requested information on the number of handicapped spaces. Commissioner Hopkins asked for information on how the surface spaces and the 12 dead end spaces in the municipal building will be signed as it appears that congestion could be a problem as vehicles look for a place to park . Commissioner Cartin asked about signage and skier parking on weekends. He added that restricting use to non -skier parking would cause the town to lose these spaces for skier parking on the weekends. He also asked about parking for the patient and family who goes back and forth between the WMC and the new building and where it is expected they will park. Page 2 Commissioner Cartin added that Timber Ridge as an example of a recent parking reduction is not a good comparison example. Commissioner Pratt asked where the bus stops are located. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that there is progress being made. He said there has been progress made regarding speaking with the community as well. He said the hospital is going to have a development plan for the future of the old campus of the VVMC and that the neighbors want o be active in the development of that plan. He said the neighborhood wants a master plan for the area between the Vail Village Master Plan and Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan areas. He said loading and delivery is an issue and asked if one bay will be enough for the complex. He said there needs to be due diligence with other communities who have these types of uses to understand the needs of loading and delivery for medical services. He commented that parking is an issue because there are many meetings throughout the day in the municipal building that demand parking spaces. He added there are many different factors to consider with parking and loading and delivery requirements. He asked who would get to use the pedestrian bridge, and whether others would be required to walk at grade across the street. He said the connectivity issues need to be understood. He said options need to be explored to move pedestrian and vehicular traffic to less congested areas. Gwen Scalpello stated that at times, the Main Vail roundabout is broken. She said the reduction in setbacks on the frontage road may crowd the road. She wants to understand the traffic pattern that is being created. Commissioner Pierce stated the parking discussion has just begun and there needs to be more information. He asked if a roundabout is necessary at this intersection. Commissioner Pratt said Carl Walker is a great parking consultant. He said the loading and delivery facility should accommodate a semi -truck. He asked why the bridge cannot go in the easement on the Evergreen property. Tim Losa stated that the easement is messy and wouldn't allow the bridge to land on the site. He said they could do better with the bridge design. He asked if sun/shade analysis would be included. He said he would hate to see an ice dam off the highway. He said the bulk and mass on the south side is concerning. He asked where the helipad is going. Commissioner Kurz said the impact of the development needs to be considered. Jim Lamont suggested building a sound wall along the north side of the buildings to show how these walls could be implemented for the valley. Commissioner Cartin asked about the US Bank building application later in the agenda. Warren Campbell stated the item is being withdrawn. Commissioner Cartin stated that the MOB elements could complement the municipal building. He added that the Commission should know what the CDOT requirements are for the bridge. George Ruther summarized comments and asked for input on comments provided. Commissioner Pratt asked for a 3D model and flyover prior to a final decision on the application Page 3 45 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to amend the development review process, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120010) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to July 9, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the staff memorandum. The problem statement and goals were introduced. Commissioner Pierce suggested that current trends in zoning should be examined. He said the Town should not patch the code, but should evaluate the process and make changes that will have positive impacts. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, highlighted concerns about the need for a development plan in connection with a rezoning application. The proposed use and development should be analyzed in conjunction with a zoning request. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, asked the Commission to provide input on the problem statement and validity of the statement that "the process is complicated and needs amendment." He asked if the perception of the problem matched reality and whether time should be invested to improve the process. He suggested tweaks are not going to get us to the point where we want to be. Commissioner Kurz stated that he would rely on staff and others on the Commission to provide feedback on whether the proposed amendments are effective and appropriate. He added that every decision made affects property values, views, etc but this should not be a governing factor. Commissioner Hopkins stated that current staff has longevity and history in their knowledge which is helpful. She believes the current situation is that applicants do not want to pay what is necessary to prepare the necessary documents to the degree that is being suggested. George Ruther clarified the differences in prescribed standards and changes to expected outcomes in conditional uses, variances, etc. Commissioner Cartin suggested that it is difficult to sort through zoning regulations and the Town should evaluate tools used to disseminate information. The method by which people can obtain information is outdated. There are new tools from phones to tablets and the Town needs a simple way to help people to understand the information. Commissioner Pratt added that large and small projects want to avoid architectural fees, design review, and build want they want. On bigger projects the process may be too easy. Communication is something that could be improved. Pending applications for DRB could be posted online as an example. Developers want the entitlements before they spend money. George Ruther spoke to the goal of creating and allowing citizen access to the digital information the Town has in its archive. Commissioner Hopkins spoke to the joint property requirement and how to keep all properties involved in the process. Page 4 George Ruther spoke to how development Vail is jointly held by many property owners and it is not the Town's place to decide how development potential is allocated between joint property ownership. Commissioner Pierce stated that the development review process does result in some great outcomes. It may not be possible to have the layman understand the process just like he wouldn't understand a medical document if he were to pick it up. The complicated process may be necessary in a lot of situations. Commissioner Kurz stated that many of the things suggested in the memorandum seem appropriate and logical. Commissioner Rediker stated that he feels that a without a complete rework of the Town Code, the result will be a patchwork of fixes as in the past. Goal 1 should add a statement as to why a specific process needs to be amended. Jim Lamont stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rediker and added that the processes existed to create and hold value in properties in Vail and require high-level design professionals in the process. He believes that the Town has developed a sophisticated design process which has resulted in a great community that maintains value. He added that if values are maintained throughout the community we are doing a good job. He said in the last six months he has witnessed how the community can convey information to the public. The community survey is from the past and may not be reflective of the feelings today. The process should not be changed to address several vocal individuals. This community will fail miserably without the quality of people who sit on the Commission and other boards. He believes the system is user friend, but people just need to be educated on how to use it. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to require restoration of watercourses and riparian areas, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120011) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to July 9, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of the Vail National Bank Building (US Bank Building) from Special Development District No. 23 with an underlying zoning of Commercial Service Center District to the General Use District, located at 108 South Frontage Road West/Lot D2, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120014) Applicant: Vail Clinic Inc., represented by Rick Pylman and Jim Wear Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction Exchange Program, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the employee housing unit deed restriction exchange program review process, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120017) Applicant: Town of Vail Page 5 Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to August 13, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt 6. Approval of May 21, 2012 minutes MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Kurz 7. Information Update 8. Adjournment MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7-0-0 VOTE: 7-0-0 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. Page 6 Ad Name: 8054005A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 MW nay PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/22/2012 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/22/2012 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/06/2012. 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 07/06/2012. 2mg-& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt-SRP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 9, 2012, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.: There have been no new applications submitted to be heard at this hearing. There will be a public hearing on July 9, 2012 to consider items which have been continued from the previous public hearing. The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published June 22, 2012, in the Vail Daily. (8054005)