Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0924 PECAd Name: 8358163A 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 9/7/2012 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/7/2012 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 09/17/2012. 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 09/17/2012. 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 September 24, 2012 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: There have been no new applications submitted to be heard at this hearing. There will be a public hearing on September 24, 2012 to consider items which have been continued from the previous pub- lic 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 September 7, 2012, in the Vail Daily. (8358163) rawN of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 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" 20 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 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: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 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 October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. 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) Page 1 Applicant: Vail MOB, LLC, represented by Triumph Development and Town of Vail, represented by Consilium Partners, Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Approval of September 10, 2012 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7. Information Update 8. 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 September 21, 2012, in the Vail Daily. Page 2 rowx of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 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** 20 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed for amendments to the construction sign (PEC120031) VOTE: 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: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 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 October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. 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) Page 1 Applicant: Vail MOB, LLC, represented by Triumph Development and Town of Vail, represented by Consilium Partners, Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Approval of September 10, 2012 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7. Information Update 8. 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 September 21, 2012, in the Vail Daily. Page 2 Ad Name: 8404545A 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 9/21/2012 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/21/2012 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/17/2012. 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 10/17/2012. ( 2mg-& 9. -'— Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt-SRP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 2012 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WEL- COME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 **Order and times of agenda items are subject to change** 20 minutes 1.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursu- ant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amend- ments to the construction sign regulations, and set- ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson 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 Regu- lations, to amend the development review process, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120010) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond 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 October 8, 2012 4.A request for the review of a variance from Sec- tion 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursu- ant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Ar- chitects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 5.A request for the review of conditional use per- mits, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Us- es, Vail Town Code, for a healthcare facility and a public building and grounds, to allow for the rede- velopment of the Town of Vail municipal site with a medical research, rehabilitation, and office building anda 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 Tri- umph Development and Town of Vail, represented by Consilium Partners, Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 6.Approval of September 10, 2012 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7.Information Update 8.Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Devel- opment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department. 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 21, 2012, in the Vail Daily. (8404545) TOWN OF VA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 10, 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 MEMBERS ABSENT Susan Bird Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker 4 hours 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 September 24, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7-0-0 Warren Campbell made a presentation per the staff memorandum. He outlined the topics of discussion for this work session and requested this item be tabled to a future hearing for further deliberations. Michael O'Conner, Triumph Development, identified the various elements of the proposal that are still being studied (traffic, helipad, etc.) and will be discussed at future Planning and Environmental Commission work sessions. He introduced the development team and representatives from the medical center. He identified the economic development opportunity and collective goal associated with this proposal. He then presented a general overview of the medical office building and why the building elements were designed as presented. Dr. Ralph Laprade, Steadman Clinic, described the deficiencies in their current clinical facilities and the need for the proposed new building. He identified their desire to create a "legacy" building to maintain and improve their operations and competitiveness with other similar clinics. Lyon Steadman, CEO of the Steadman Clinic, spoke about the growth of the Steadman Clinic over the past 15 years and reiterated the need for the new building. He noted the economic impacts for the community and opportunities for expansion with this collaboration between the medical center, the Town of Vail, and their clinic. Page 1 Coen Wijdicks, Director of Bio Mechanical Research for the Steadman- Phillipon research Institute, identified the importance of close proximity between the clinic and the research institute. He restated the importance of the proposed collaboration. Tom Mars, COO of Vail Valley Medical Center, identified the site constraints of the current medical center and the need for additional space which could be created by moving the clinic and research institute. He noted the medical center's support for the proposal and opportunity for a pedestrian bridge linking across the South Frontage Road. Mr. O'Conner, Triumph Development, summarized the reasons for the project. He acknowledged the need for many uses on a relatively small development site. Gary Lapera, Michael Graves Architects, identified the goals and intent of the design and then presented the architectural plans for the proposed building. He described the desired "institutional" massing for the building. He described how the proposed crystal form roof is intended to create an iconic feature that connects the inside to the outside. He noted that the proposed flag poles on the pedestrian overpass create "markers" for the frontage road. The front door of the new building and existing medical center are intended to be speaking to each other. Tim Losa, Zehren and Associates, described the surrounding properties and the associated building scales, heights, setbacks, etc. He asked the Commission for input on these items. Mr. Lapera noted that this project will be a "catalyst" for Vail and surrounding communities. He believes this site will be an unusual site for employee housing and this project needs special consideration with regard to the commercial linkage requirements. Mr. Losa noted that the surface parking design is being reconsidered and plans are not finalized; however, the majority of the proposed landscaping will be proposed in the eastern corner of the lot. He requested that the Commission also provide input on landscaping. He then described the proposed loading and delivery locations and access points. He identified increases made to the proposed loading capacities since the Commission's last hearing. He identified constraints to parking and delivery vehicle locations due to magnetism associated with certain medical equipment. He described the proposed fire staging areas. Will Hentschel, Oz Architecture, made himself available for questions. He noted that the municipal building has been modified since the Commission's last review, but the general design character is the same. Mr. O'Connor addressed the Commission concerning the employee housing requirements of the project. He requested a waiver from the on-site mitigation requirements as outlined in the Town Code. He described how this project meets three of the four waiver criteria and noted the Commission only needs to find that the project meets one criterion to grant a waiver. He identified how the project is in conformance with the purpose of the General Use District and is compatible with the neighborhood. He identified the appropriateness of the location of this use and how it achieves the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. He noted that the Vail Land Use Plan does not identify this site as a future location for housing. He also described conformance with the Vail 20/20 Plan. He identified the exceptional circumstances associated with the site due to its size and the sites configuration as an "island in a sea of CDOT right-of-way". He identified this site as Vail's front door that needs a prominent building. He does not believe an additional story of height for employee housing would be appropriate for this building. Mike Foster, Triumph Development, answered questions from the Commission's last hearing related to employee and patient parking. Page 2 Rob McConnell, Carl Walker Inc., described the proposed parking demand analysis and the related number of proposed parking spaces. He identified the parking requirements and requirement reductions prescribed by the Vail Town Code. Commissioner Pierce opened the hearing to public comment. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, requested a break before the beginning of public comment. The Commission took a 7 minute recess. Laney Lapin, Meadow Drive homeowner, asked what engineering rating is the proposed medical office building. Mr. Losa noted that the building has a "B" occupancy. Mrs. Lapin asked for clarification if patients will move between buildings after surgery for therapy. Mr. Mars stated that the described scenario is unlikely Mrs. Lapin noted that she was told a patient can not leave the hospital and move to an office building unless that office building is constructed in the same manner as a medical type building. Mr. O'Connor stated that they would look into specification of operation in more detail. His understanding was that more procedures are a 23 -hour stay and not a long term stay at the hospital. He clarified that no surgery rooms are proposed in the new medical office building. Mery Lapin, Meadow Drive homeowner, voiced his concerns about impacts to traffic. He is also concerned about the helipad. He recommends it not be in that location due to its devastating impact to neighbors. He noted that the helicopter came approximately 72 times last year and often arrives at night. Back in the 1970's the windows of his former house were blown out twice by helicopters landing at the medical center. He identified FAA regulations requiring two approaches for helicopters and the avoidance of residential neighborhoods. He and his neighbors understand the need for a helicopter landing pad, but request a different location than the medical center building. He recommended reviewing the medical office building and the medical center as a whole. He acknowledged that Vail needs a functional medical center, but in other mountain communities require helicopters to land in off-site areas. Last winter a test program resulted in a helicopter staging in Vail everyday during the ski season which resulted in even greater impact than on -demand helicopter service. He noted the PEC and Town Council review should be required in the future for a change such as this. He does not believe the proposed architecture is in keep with the Vail character and reminds him of the boat building in Avon. This building should be called the "unicorn building". He acknowledged that the surrounding buildings are not attractive, but like the Four Seasons it should have an alpine character. Gwen Scalpello, resident at 9 Vail Road, agreed with Mr. Lapin's comments. She noted the parking, site coverage, etc. problems associated with her building being considered part of a shared site. She warned that this building may suffer the same problems. She recommended that parking, height, site coverage, etc. should be examined based upon each one-half on the site and not as a whole. They are uniquely and separately owned and developed. She cautioned about the challenges down the road in one side wants to expand and grow. She believes parking without separate entrances or designations will be challenging to track and Page 3 control. She noted concerns about limited setbacks to the north is 1-70 is ever expanded. She is also concerned by the limited south setbacks and impacts when the South Frontage Road is expanded in the future. There will be no room available for a sidewalk. She is concerned about a development approach based upon we did it in Lionshead, so we should be able to do it here". She is troubled by the request for no on-site employee housing. This project is a major development and net new housing is needed. She recommends buying down or restricting existing units does not create new employee housing. She quest is a waiver is granted Richard Kent, Scorpio Condominiums HOA president, asked what the existing and proposed net floor area is per doctor. He recommended reviewing the medical office building, medical center, and bank building be reviewed as a whole. He is concerned about traffic and the waiver for one - site employee housing. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner Association, noted that at a previous hearing about the bank building, the Commission recommended the medical center and the neighborhood find better ways to communicate. Since then, the homeowners have proposed a neighborhood review process. He is concerned that direct communication is not yet all that it could be. He acknowledged that the medical center has begun preparing a facilities plan. He believes there are key studies that must be completed for the whole complex that need to be know before individual projects can be reviewed. He does not believe loading and delivery can be reviewed without knowing how it operates today and how it will operate for the whole medical center in the future. Jim Lamont presented a 2003 frontage road traffic study from the Town's archives to the Commission's review. He noted that this location is a keystone to traffic throughout Vail. He acknowledged the importance of the medical office building use to the community, so the Town of Vail may want to contribute to further community traffic study and master planning. He asked what real world factors need to be understood further. He recommends that the more parking constructed the better. If parking is built, it will be used. He gave the example that the helipad is an example of no one knowing the actual FAA regulations standards of whether or not a future helipad is feasible at the medical center. He asked if employee housing should be integrated in the medical campus as a whole. A significant part of the existing site is only a surface parking lot. If the Town of Vail needs critical employees to live in Town, he suggested that the medical center is a potential site. How many years of debate were associated with taller heights in Lionshead combined with setbacks, step -backs, articulations, etc.; are those design provisions going to be thrown out? Should the pedestrian bridge be a public bridge and not exclusive to the medical office building given the future traffic use of the frontage road? There needs to be fairness. How much did the Town beat on the Ever Vail project to step down building heights? He is not sure this is the right site for this project. How does this project interact with on - mountain and tourism uses in Vail? Commissioner Pierce recommended the Commission address the topics one at a time. Commissioner Kurz asked how loading and delivery and parking will operate with traffic. He agreed with right -in, right -out turns. Commissioner Rediker recommended that delivery drivers be notified that they will be exiting to the right and driving to West Vail before they can re-enter the east bound interstate. Commissioner Bird asked how hazardous waste will be addressed. Mr. Foster described the "red bag area" in a separate room with separate procedures. Commissioner Kurz asked about the access for public recycling. Page 4 Warren Campbell clarified that public recycling will no longer occur on this site Commissioner Pratt is concerned that a second delivery vehicle could be blocked by the first. He believe the two -bay dock bay is adequate. Commissioner Cartin asked about the turning movements associated with delivery trucks. He asked for further description of the trash and recycling locations. Commissioner Hopkins requested a massing model that includes the neighboring buildings. She asked for clarification about the parking numbers and asked if a tunnel could be constructed between the medical office building and the medical center. She noted that the Town Hall building may be able to accommodate employee housing. She noted that the Town has worked hard for years to achieve energy efficiency. How will the large glass roof on the MOB address energy efficiency? How will the metal roof address rain and snow shedding, since it appears to shed over the building entry or potentially impact to the street. She asked if loading will be adequate to address future demand. She is concerned that the icon style of the two buildings does not make up for the mass of the buildings. She recommended adding balconies or other solutions. Commission Pierce agreed with the Staff memorandum confirming the need for a written description of the loading and delivery demands as anticipated. How will food service delivery be addressed? He recommends some form of notification when the dock is full so trucks do not accidentally enter the facility. Commissioner Kurz asked for clarification about food service Mr. O'Connor clarified that food service will be limited to catering Commissioner Kurz asked how much peak demand will really be increased, since many existing uses appear to be simply relocating. Will the hospital be decompressed or will the displaced space be reoccupied as intensely as it is today? Mr. Steadman quantified the anticipated staffing increases. Mr. Mars noted that the vacated areas of the medical center will be a good location for the expansion of existing and new uses. Commissioner Kurz noted that increasing demand is a good problem, but what will this campus look like several years from now. Are we exacerbating the problem by not having a 10 year plan for the medical center? Will employee housing uses be problematic? How can some of these issues be addressed without a master plan. He recommends the location of the helipad be entirely reviewed by the FAA. On one hand is the safety of the patient versus the safety of the neighborhood. He noted that there are potential impacts to neighbors and the streets. Commissioner Rediker asked questions about how the lecture hall was addressed in the parking study. Mr. McConnell noted that the typical use is addressed in the study. Commissioner Rediker asked how sessions with outside attendees are addressed. Mr. Steadman noted that out-of-town doctors typically stay at a local hotel, so they us shuttles and bus service. These presentation and conferences will typically occur on weekends. Page 5 Commissioner Rediker noted concern that much of the parking analysis is based upon assumptions. What if a doctor rents a car at the Denver airport and drive to Vail? He is concerned about the parking reductions for shared use was already described as an arbitrary reduction. He noted that Town Code parking requirements should not be substituted for a ULI based analysis. Commissioner Bird agrees with Commissioner Rediker and she believes parking is under estimated. Commissioner Pratt will defer to the experts on parking demand for the medical center, but the Town Hall numbers are too low. He used the number of cars from those attending this hearing as an example. He is not comfortable with the baseline numbers and future demands will exceed the spaces proposed. Commissioner Cartin agrees with Commissioner Pratt that the municipal building parking is too low. He recommends using under utilized parking spaces on the weekends for skier parking and special events parking. He recommended constructing as much parking as possible. He asked about the frontage road medians shown on some plans. Mr. Foster clarified that those are future road improvements and the medians shown in front of this site will be constructed with this project. Commissioner Hopkins asked about if the proposed turn -around will accommodate peak arrivals such as a lecture hall presentation or a council chamber event. Mr. Foster described the on-site traffic patterns and queuing. This plan is being re-examined and more detail will be presented at the Commission's next hearing. Commissioner Pierce asked if a future round -a -bout will be needed, where will it be located and how would it be designed. Mr. Foster noted that a future round -a -bout is being examined. Commissioner Cartin recommended combining the bus stop and fire staging areas. Commission Bird noted concerns about the bus stop and the cross walk being located in the same location, since vehicles are confused whether or not a pedestrian is crossing or waiting for a bus. Commissioner Pierce asked for clarification about short-term parking. Mr. Foster described the most recent parking lot configuration. The majority of Commission agreed that the municipal building parking numbers are "light", but Commissioner Pierce agreed with the Carl Walker report. Commissioner Kurz agreed with Commissioner Hopkins that the building appears to be blocky and large. The building needs to look less big. He is ok with the setbacks as proposed. Commissioner Rediker agreed with Commissioner Hopkins concerns about the roof shedding into the street. Page 6 Mr. Foster noted that the newly aligned frontage road will be 17 feet to the north and the building will be 15 to 20 off the street. Mr. Losa clarified that a snow shedding control will be installed. Commissioner Bird asked if there is adequate room for pedestrians to from the sidewalk to access the bridge. Mr. Foster clarified that is an exterior entrance is provided, an elevator will be required. An elevator would be cumbersome and create maintenance costs. At this time the bridge will be a private, not public, bridge. Commissioner Bird asked about bridge height. Mr. Campbell clarified that it will meet CDOT clearance standards. Commissioner Pratt is concern about how close the building is to the south setback. Commissioner Kurz and Rediker do not believe the proposed height is egregious. Commission Rediker acknowledged that the building is big, but not a big as Solaris. Commissioner Pierce recommended that if Lionshead height is allowed, then setbacks, step - backs, etc. must be applied too as included in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Commissioner Pratt agreed with Commissioner Pierce. He agrees with Commissioner Hopkins that the glass room will be a heating and glare night mare. He does not support the long linear roof form. He recommended the glass roof be on the east side to identify the location of the building entrance. He recommends additional height if the building is articulated. He does not like the angles of the proposed building. Commissioner Cartin agrees with applying the other Lionshead design guidelines. He requested a 3-D model to evaluate the whole site. The municipal building may be an opportunity for employee housing. Commissioner Hopkins described her knowledge of the history of employee housing from the 1980's and the need for it then and now for the town's self preservation. There were no Commissioner comments about site coverage. Commissioner Kurz stated that this project will build the community short and long term. He agrees with some recommendations of the Housing Authority. He does not believe this is an appropriate location for employee housing do to location, surrounding traffic, and desires to not live at work. He believes existing unit can be restricted as allowed for other projects. Commissioner Rediker agrees with many recommendations by the Town's Housing Coordinator. While he is on the Housing Authority, he recused himself from this discussion. He agrees with concerns about setting a precedent by not requiring some hosing to be built on-site. He believes such a decision would be hypocritical of the Town when other developers. He believes the municipal building is an opportunity for a housing location. He believes dispersed employee housing in all neighborhoods is important. He agrees that Chamonix should not be considered an option for mitigation since that property is intended to make up for current deficiencies. Page 7 Commissioner Bird suggested housing would be important on-site since there is a need from seasonal doctors and students and seasons Town Staff. She recommended adding an additional story to the municipal building for housing. Commissioner Pratt does not believe on-site employee housing is appropriate generally. Employee should be dispersed around town and not live at work. He believes the municipal building is an appropriate location for employee housing. He agrees with the recommendation for new off-site housing. Commissioner Cartin agrees with Commissioner Pratt in supporting new off-site housing. He believes it is foolish that the Town is requesting a waiver from on-site housing. Commissioner Pierce clarified that there is little net new floor area and housing requirements for the Town. But, it should like the Commissioners support mitigation for the medical building at the municipal building. Commissioner Hopkins identified the boom and bust historic need for employees. She noted that the medical office could use employee housing as compensation and an incentive for employees in boom years. Commissioner Pierce noted support for on-site employee housing somewhere on the whole site, including on at the municipal building. Mr. Lamont finds it ironic that the medical center rents housing in the neighborhood today, so employee housing should be addressed campus wide. Commissioner Pratt noted that the helipad location is the lightning rod for this project. He is disappointed that no permanent location has been determined yet. He acknowledged the desire for this at the medical center, but it does have negative impacts to the neighbors. He does not believe Ford Park is a permanent helipad location. Commissioner Kurz believes this is a wonderful collaborative project that needs to be facilitated. Commissioner Cartin also recommended resolving the helipad issue. He noted concerns about daytime glare concerns about the glass room and light pollution at night. Commissioner Pierce noted his disappointment about the medical office building. It doesn't relate to Vail and is not an iconic building. He is concerned about one more shed tower on a building the same as the fire station, Avon Walgreens, and Frisco hotel along the interstate. 20 minutes 2. A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-813-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for "accessory building and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concession, storage buildings, and similar uses" to allow for the construction of temporary buildings for golf course and Nordic center operations including offices, restrooms, general storage, trash storage, golf cart storage, etc., generally located at 1655 Sunburst Drive (Vail Golf Course starter shack and driving range area) / Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120032) Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with Condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-1 (Pierce recused) Page 8 CONDITION(S): 1. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. 2. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant and the Town of Vail obtaining design review approval and all final conditional use permit approvals for renovations to the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse that displace golf course and/or Nordic center operations. 3. This conditional use permit approval shall expire in accordance with Section 12-16-8, Permit Approval and Effect, Vail Town Code, or within 60 days of the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for a renovated golf course clubhouse building. All temporary buildings associated with this application shall be removed and the site restored prior to the expiration of this conditional use permit." The Commission tabled agenda items 3 through 7. Commissioner Pierce then recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest and departed the hearing. Bill Gibson made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz asked how many golf carts are on site and if there were other locations for storage. Scott O'Connell, Vail Recreation District, identified the number of carts and clarified that in the winter the carts will be shipped off-site and the tent will be removed. Commissioner Bird will the buildings be ADA accessible and where restrooms would be located. Mr. O'Connell stated that they would be ADA accessible and identified the location of the restrooms. Commissioner Pratt asked if the driving range would be shorted and if so, would there be any increased danger of balls going over the driving range net. Mr. O'Connell described how the driving range tee boxes would be affected and described how the VRD Staff will interact with range guests to address the issue. He noted that the range could be limited to irons only if this issue became a problem. Commissioner Bird asked about the location of snow cats for Nordic operations. Mr. O'Connell explained how snowcats and snowmobiles will be stored at the maintenance building and not at this location. Commissioner Pratt asked what will be stored in the proposed garage and which direction the doors will face. Mr. O'Connell said the garage door will face east and additional stock for the pro shop will be stored in the building. Commissioner Bird inquired about rental equipment. Mr. O'Connell stated that rental services would occur in the existing starter shack. Page 9 Art Abplanalp, representing several property owners in the vicinity, stated that his clients support the redevelopment of the clubhouse and acknowledged that these temporary facilities are a necessary part of that project. He requested that the words "all final" be added to the second condition regarding the requirement for conditional use permits. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, asked for clarification on the "all final" wording address design review for the clubhouse building and not other design review applications such as signage. Commissioner Rediker proposed wording for the second condition that was agreeable to both Art Abplanalp and Greg Hall. 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 September 24, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 4. 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 September 24, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to September 24, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 7-0-0 7. 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 10 Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Pratt 8. Approval of August 27, 2012 minutes ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Bird 9. Information Update: View Corridors 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 VOTE: 4-0-2 (Cartin and Kurz abstained, Pierce absent,) VOTE: 6-0-0 (Pierce absent) 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 West. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 7, 2012, in the Vail Daily. Page 11 rowx of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 24, 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** MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Susan Bird Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker 20 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of Approval with Modifications MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Bird VOTE: 6-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall modify Section 11-7-6a-1 to allow a maximum sign area of 8 square feet in all residential zone districts. Construction signs in all other zone districts will continue to be allowed a maximum sign area of 20 square feet. Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz asked about construction sites being required to mitigate large construction fences. Otherwise he had no concerns about this application. Bill Gibson stated that Staff would look into potential regulations amendments. Commissioner Bird asked about projects that currently advertise multiple sub -contractors. Bill Gibson responded that these signs are illegal and are addressed by the Town's Code Enforcement. He added that allowing website information on construction signs would help direct people to information about the various subcontractors involved in the project. Commissioner Bird supported allowing website information on construction signs. Commissioner Pratt stated that the examples provided show two ends of the spectrum and he is concerned about scale. He said the former billion dollar renewal signs may be appropriate for big construction projects. But for small projects, advertisements through realtor information and renderings are not appropriate. He does not support a realtor being the emergency contact name on the sign. Page 1 Commissioner Hopkins did not have any comment Commissioner Rediker asked the original purpose for the signs and how to address the distinction between site information and advertising. He also noted concerns about balancing ease of implementation with one set of regulations with different regulations for different sized construction projects. Commissioner Kurz asked if a condition should be placed to restrict advertising. Commissioner Hopkins stated that there are a number of construction signs currently in East Vail. She believes the renderings help the neighborhood understand what the project will look like. Commissioner Kurz stated the signs could help people get excited about the project. Commissioner Pratt stated that instead of a rendering, perhaps the business logos of extra project partners could be on the sign. Commissioner Pierce stated it should include realtors, architects and contractor. He added the sign only needs to be 8 square feet in size instead of 20 square feet. Commissioner Hopkins stated the signs should only be 6 square feet like other signs. Commissioner Bird added she likes having a rendering allowed on the signs. Commissioner Pierce recommended reducing the allowable size of construction signs. Commissioner Hopkins stated 8 square feet would be good in residential zone districts and 20 square feet could remain in commercial zone districts. Commissioner Kurz agreed with Commissioner Hopkins. 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 October 8, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum Commissioner Kurz noted concern about construction projects that affect roofs that change building height changes, snow shedding, etc. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification about how off-site impacts are determined. He noted support for reducing fees and creating savings for developers and property owners. However, he is concerned about reducing fees below the costs of administering the regulations. Commissioner Rediker recommended clarifying the intent of the proposed text related to its applicability to avoid future confusion and legal challenges. He asked if important elements of Page 2 the existing regulations are being lost with the proposed amendments, such as application requirements and approval expirations. Rachel Dimond described what items would be deleted and how those items would be addressed differently. Commissioners Bird, Pratt, and Hopkins had no additional comment. Commissioner Pierce agreed with Commissioner Rediker's comments. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked for clarification about what projects will have public notice requirements. He does not support any reduction in public notification requirements. Commissioner Rediker asked for further clarification about public notice for projects that affect roof lines. Rachel Dimond noted that currently, newsletters are available with Design Review Board agendas. The Town's goal is to make the GIS system be available online to identify proposed projects. Commissioner Bird suggested that property owners could sign up online to receive notice of any project within a certain neighborhood. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification about which project would no longer require public notice under the proposed regulations. Rachel Dimond provided examples, including projects in CC1 and CC2 Districts that modify rooflines and add GRFA but do not add new units. Commissioner Hopkins clarified that the notification mostly applies to commercial areas does not affect residential districts. Commissioner Rediker recommended defining the term "substantial off-site impacts". Commissioner Pierce asked about notification of changes in use in the core areas. Rachel Dimond further described existing and proposed notification requirements. Commissioner Pierce asked about notification associated with Staff reviewed items. Rachel Dimond identified concerns about lengthening the development review times associated with additional notice. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification about current review and notice timeframes. Rachel Dimond described the current notification and review process. Commissioner Rediker described the balance between streamlining and notification. Jim Lamont stated he believes notification should be immediately sent to concerned parties and lists of interested parties should be gathered. He believes as a global community it is important to let everyone know about applications. He believes there is enough political pressure today to Page 3 change covenants to require more public notice. Anything that could affect property values in any way should be noticed. He gave examples of tree removal. He noted that many items that come before DRB should have had neighbor notice in advance. Commissioner Bird noted concern about utilizing the US Postal Service for notice since some letters take many days to be delivered. She recommended expediting a computerized notification process. She agreed with Jim Lamont's comments that there is a need for more public notice. Commissioner Pierce recommended shortening the process, but asked if notification could be sent out earlier in the review process. Rachel Dimond suggested creating an email list Commissioner Pratt recommended sending out notice immediately upon application even if the submittal is not complete. Rachel Dimond noted that Staff will come back with various options to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Rediker summarized his concerns about applicability language, fees, application expirations, and notification to neighbors. Commissioner Kurz noted concern about increasing the time frame for review and that sending notification prematurely could misinform neighbors. The notice should be sent once there is a concrete application. Jim Lamont noted that notification should address the project scale such as Ever Vail. Neighbors become upset once deals or agreements have been made before a project is formally submitted. People expect their government to be transparent. He noted the 18th green project as an example of how notification wasn't effective. People need to be informed about anything that may affect their property values. Commissioner Pratt recommended looking toward other communities for examples of more notice. Commissioner Hopkins noted that wise developers contact their neighbors prior to submitting formal development applications to the town. Commissioner Pierce noted that projects like Ever Vail don't sneak -up on anyone, but smaller projects could. Commissioner Pierce addressed Commissioner Kurz's comments. He agreed that shortening the review process is the goal and sending the notice immediately is the only way to condense the times. Commissioner Rediker agreed with Commissioner Pierce's comments. He noted concerns that the onus should be on the applicants and not on the Town Staff to speed up the process. Commissioners Rediker and Hopkins identified challenges with out -of -country owners Page 4 Commissioner Kurz agreed everyone should be notified, but they shouldn't be notified with vague information. Misinformation doesn't shorten anything and notices should be vetted before being sent. 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 October 8, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 8, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 5. 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 October 8, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 6. Approval of September 10, 2012 minutes ACTION: Approved with modification MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6-0-0 MODIFICATIONS: 1. Commissioner Pierce asked for the minutes on Page 8 to be amended to express the depth of his concern and his extreme disappointment with the architecture of the proposed medical office building, as stated at the September 10, 2012 hearing. Pam Hopkins added that she agreed with his concerns about that proposal at the September 10, 2012 hearing. 7. Information Update Warren stated benefits forms will be made available soon. Commissioners Pierce and Bird commented on a recent training session they attended. They recommended additional dialog and sessions between the Commission and the Town Council and Design Review Board. They also recommended additional collaboration with other jurisdictions in the county. 8. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6-0-0 Page 5 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 21, 2012 in the Vail Daily. Page 6 TOWN OF 0) VAIL ` Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 24, 2012 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120031) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations. The proposed amendments will allow for additional content to be displayed on general construction signs including: • One business logo of the emergency contact. • Brief factual description of the construction project. • One website address. • One quick response (QR) code. • An artist rendering of the finished construction project. • Proposed construction completion date. The applicant is also proposing to clarify the sign type, design, and landscaping requirements for construction signs which are not addressed by the current sign regulations. For further clarification of the sign regulations, the applicant is also proposing to repeal Section 11-7-6, Temporary Site Development Signs, Vail Town Code. The temporary site development sign regulations were associated with the Town sponsored "Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal" communications program which began in 2005 and has since been discontinued. 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 The applicant is proposing the following amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code (text to be deleted is in strikethre nh, text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted): /11 Droient Pomo /21 C2iiildl pg Hermit up9ber (3) oe TtaCt in p4gnatiep QP4, one Home one phone umber and one e_moi/ add4/ 66 Shall he permitter/ (il) V4vL inol add -Fess. Town of Vail Page 2 11-743 6: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS.- A. IGNS: A. Description: A sign permitted to identify and describe a project under construction apd the assnniated haza ileus nnnrlifinns 1. S4e-Area: Any construction sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet, with a horizontal dimension no greater than ten feet (10). 2. Height: The top of a construction sign shall be no higher than eight feet (8) from grade. 3. Number. One sign per construction site. 4. Location be mounted on the nenstr„mien fon^o Construction signs shall be mounted parallel and flush to the building wall or construction fence adjacent to the street or major pedestrianway to which the construction site abuts. 5. Lighting: Not permitted. 6. Type of Sign: Construction signs shall not be freestanding signs. 7. Design: Subject to design review. 8. Landscaping: Not applicable. 9. Display Duration: Construction signs may be displayed upon issuance of the associated building permit(s) and shall be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7 Content-- QP4, the fnllew ng tevt droll be innluded on nnnstrunfinn signs with nn ether Gement perr»itteGL a DYnieGt name h Building permit number, G. oeptaGt inf�nrmnatie QP4, one name, one phone number and one email add -Fess shall he pe gitterl rl Dhv inal add -Fess Town of Vail Page 3 10. Content. No content other than listed below shall be included on a construction sign: a. Construction signs shall include the following information: (1) Physical address of the construction site. (2) Building permit number(s). (3) Construction project name(s). (4) One emergency contact, including one individual and business name, one telephone number and one e-mail address. b. Construction signs may include the following additional information: (1) One business logo of the emergency contact. (2) Brief factual description of the construction project. (3) One website address. (4) One quick response (QR) code. (4) An artist rendering of the finished construction project. (5) Proposed construction completion date. 11. Special Provisions: Signs identifying dangerous or hazardous conditions associated with a construction site are exempt from design review as further regulated by Section 11-9-1, Exempt Signs, of this title. 11-7-4413: Promotional Event Posters: 11-7-4-5 14: Public Parking And Loading Signs For Private Property: 11-7-46 15: Ski Base Area Signs: 11-7-47- 16: Informational And Directional Sign For Public Parking On Private Property: III. BACKGROUND In the mid -2000's the Town of Vail experienced an unprecedented volume of construction activity with a variety of physical and economic impacts on the Town's businesses, guests, and residents. The Vail Town Council identified this as a period of large scale development. The Council wished to minimize the negative impacts of that construction activity by allowing temporary signage to direct guests to core area businesses during construction of the Vail Village streetscape, Arrabelle, Vail's Front Door, and other significant construction projects in the town's core areas. In May 2005, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2005, which allowed "temporary signs, construction fencing, and other temporary improvements within Vail's commercial core" until April 1, 2008. The Vail Town Council extended these regulations through the adoption of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2008, and Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2010. These temporary sign regulations expired on April 1, 2011. Town of Vail Page 4 In addition to minimizing the impacts of construction projects, the Vail Town Council also wanted to celebrate and market Vail's "renaissance" associated with this large scale development period. In 2005, the Town of Vail Community Information Office, in cooperation with various other groups, developed and implemented a communications program for "Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal". This program included allowing additional construction signage. This additional signage was initially allowed for major redevelopment projects in commercial areas, but was eventually extended to all construction projects town -wide. This additional signage was subject to a pre- determined sign size and layout that included the Billion Dollar Renewal slogan. These signs were allowed more content than general construction signs including a project description, website address, artist rendering, and proposed completion date. The regulation of these Billion Dollar Renewal signs was clarified by the Vail Town Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2005, in January 2006. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2005, defined these signs as "Temporary Site Development Signs" and re -name general construction signs (formerly known as temporary site development signs) as "Construction Sign". During the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of that ordinance, the Staff memorandum described the need for the amendments to the Sign Regulations as follows: Excerpt, August 22, 2005, Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission: Staff Comment: During Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal, there has been confusion among applicants as to which signs and which regulations apply to particular projects. Staff feels that construction sign and temporary site development sign should be clarified to create two separate terms, one for major development periods, and the other for general construction. We have also chosen to codify the requirements for each of these signs (revamping the Temporary Site Development Sign regulations and creating Construction Sign regs below). In the future, applicants will have a clear understanding of which signs apply to their projects. Staff will also have codified standards from which to regulate. Excerpt, October 5, 2005, Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission: Staff Comments: The regulations need to be adjusted to clarify the difference between "Temporary Site Development Signs" and "Construction Signs" As Temporary Site Development Signs will be linked to major development periods in Vail, such as the Billion Dollar Renewal, the Code needs to reflect the Town Council approved sign program introduced by the Department of Community Development and/or the Department of Public Works. (See attached "Billion Dollar Renewal Sign Program" sheet.) The Billion Dollar Renewal communications program has ended and the commercial core temporary sign regulations of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2010, have expired. Town of Vail Page 5 IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS TITLE 11: SIGN REGULATIONS (in part) Chapter 11-2: Purpose 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. 11-7-6: TEMPORARY SITE DEVELOPMENT SIGNS.- A. IGNS: A. Description: A sign permitted to identify and describe a project under construction and the associated hazardous conditions during large scale development periods as determined by the town council. 1. Size: Any site development sign shall not exceed forty two inches by fifty three inches (42" x 53') in dimension. 2. Number. One sign per building frontage upon a site. 3. Location: Signs shall be mounted on construction fencing. In the absence of construction fencing, a two (2) sided sign mounted on a four by four inch (4 x 4') post may be placed within a landscaped planter. 4. Lighting: Not permitted. 5. Special Provisions: Temporary site development signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Town of Vail Page 6 6. Content: No content other than listed below shall be included on a temporary site development sign.- a. ign: a. Temporary site development signs shall include the following information.- (1) nformation: (1) Project name. (2) Building permit number. (3) Contact information. Only one name, one phone number and one e-mail address shall be permitted. (4) Physical address. b. Temporary site development signs may include the following information.- (1) nformation: (1) Staff approved development slogans. (2) Brief factual description of the project. (3) Website address. (4) Artist rendering. (5) Proposed completion date. 11-7-13: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS.- A. IGNS: A. Description: A sign permitted to identify and describe a project under construction and the associated hazardous conditions. 1. Size: Any construction sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet, with a horizontal dimension no greater than ten feet (10). 2. Height: The top of a sign shall be no higher than eight feet (8) from grade. 3. Number. One sign per site. 4. Location: A wall mounted sign shall be placed parallel to the exterior wall adjacent to the street or major pedestrianway which the building abuts and shall be subject to design review. If no wall exists for sign to be placed, the sign may be mounted on the construction fence. 5. Lighting: Not permitted. 6. Special Provisions: Construction signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 7. Content: Only the following text shall be included on construction signs with no other content permitted.- a. ermitted: a. Project name. b. Building permit number. Town of Vail Page 7 c. Contact information. Only one name, one phone number and one e-mail address shall be permitted. d. Physical address. V. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the sign regulations. Staff finds that the prescribe regulations amendment continues to maintain the general purpose of the sign regulations outlined in Section IV above including promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and promoting 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. Staff finds the proposed prescribed regulation amendments will better describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the Town of Vail; encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere; preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform; and aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community than the currently adopted regulations. Staff finds the proposed amendments maintain the original purposes for construction signs by requiring the display of important construction site information for emergency responders such as the site address, building permit number, emergency contact information, etc. Staff finds the proposed amendments provide opportunities to communicate additional construction site information to emergency responders, neighboring property owners, and the general public. The Vail Town Code does not allow real estate sales signs (except temporary open house signs) or off-site adverting. Temporary site development signs and construction signs are not intended to be de - facto advertising signs. By continuing to regulate the content of construction signs, Staff finds the proposed regulations maintain this intent. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed prescribed regulations amendments comply with this criterion. 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. Since the Town's Billion Dollar Renewal communications program has ended and the commercial core temporary sign regulations of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2010, have expired; the Temporary Site Development Sign provisions of the Town's sign regulations are no longer relevant or valid. This is not clear based upon the current Town of Vail Page 8 language of the adopted sign regulations. Today, there is again confusion among many applicants as to which sign regulations are applicable to current construction projects - "construction sign" or "temporary site development sign" standards. Therefore, the applicant requests the provisions addressing temporary site development signs be repealed. While applicants no longer desire to erect a Billion Dollar Renewal slogan construction sign, they do prefer the sign content allowances of those temporary site development signs over the current content allowances for general construction signs. The applicant is proposing to expand the allowable content for construction signs to include those items previously allowed on temporary site development signs. Staff finds the content previously allowed on Billion Dollar Renewal temporary site development signs was consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and was compatible with the development objectives of the town. Staff finds that allowing similar content on general construction signs will continue to be consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the town's development objectives. The applicant is also proposing to clarify the sign type, design, and landscaping requirements for construction signs which are not addressed by the current sign regulations. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed prescribed regulations amendments comply 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. As described above, the Billion Dollar Renewal communications program has ended and the commercial core temporary sign regulations of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2010, have expired; the Temporary Site Development Sign provisions of the Town's sign regulations are no longer relevant or valid. This is not clear based upon the current language of the adopted sign regulations. Today, there is again confusion among many applicants as to which sign regulations are applicable to current construction projects - "construction sign" or "temporary site development sign" standards. Therefore, the applicant requests the provisions addressing temporary site development signs be repealed. While applicants no longer desire to erect a Billion Dollar Renewal slogan construction sign, they do prefer the sign content allowances of those temporary site development signs over the current content allowances for general construction signs. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to expand the allowable content for construction signs to include those items previously allowed on temporary site development signs. Town of Vail Page 9 Therefore, Staff finds the proposed prescribed regulations amendments 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. As described above, Staff finds the proposed prescribed regulations amendments are consistent with the general and specific purposes of the sign regulations and better implement and achieve the Town's development objectives than the current regulations. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed prescribed regulations amendment complies witr this criterion. 5. Such other factors and criteria the PEC and/or Town 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 Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the construction sign regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of Staff's September 247 2012, 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 Town of Vail Page 10 and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Existing construction sign example B. Expired temporary site development sign (Billion Dollar Renewal) example C. Proposed construction sign example Town of Vail Page 11 x emu 0 N V D0 0 = O 1 4ml CO V o cn P%n c a) a �a o '- s n �,. W Ln u .. O L- CL a U� v .-. r- .o E N o o O ct 0I N Ln v v°i 00-0 LC) L L O J I"zj L Q E L > a.r c 3 O Z 3 v w U Z � L °' o O Ci- CL c U NO A L n -m p o 0 rL Z N co > N � c N O > J The Ar#wb, e ile at Vail S4�a1 'Mr, 1 M • O N rr^� Vi O C3 • � U � ct w 1� O O n O E ag 0 rowN OF vain Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: September 24, 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: 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. Consolidation of land uses 18. Summary of current trends in development review 19. Fee schedules 20. Cost considerations 21. Conceptual review process 22. Combined DRB/Building Permit process 23. DRB/PEC joint hearings to discuss DRB process MAJOR AND MINOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS- PEC REVIEW 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: an increase in dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee units, an 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 Town of Vail Page 2 • 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: an increase in dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee units, an addition of 1,000 square feet of commercial space, or projects with substantial off-site impacts as determined by the administrator. • Staff recommends that an addition or modification of outdoor dining decks in CC1 and CC2 continue to be reviewed as a conditional use permit, which will still require PEC review. • Staff recommends an 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: o The uniformity of exterior alterations would allow for a standardization of regulations, thus reducing the confusion in regulations. o 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. o Review of outdoor dining areas in CC1 and CC2 would still be reviewed by the PEC, but only through a conditional use permit, no longer requiring two review processes. • Cons: o The PEC would have less purview over certain aspects of changes in CC1 and CC2 Districts. o There would be no neighbor notice for roofline modification in CC1 and CC2. • Amendments achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 MAJOR AND MINOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS- DRB REVIEW DRB applications associated with 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, Town of Vail Page 3 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. pplications: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. 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. pplicable,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. • Public notification of such changes would not change- there would be no specific notification of neighbors as there is not today. • Cons: • There would be no public hearing on items that could be administratively approved. • Amendments achieve goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 III. PROPOSED REGULATIONS 12-3-11: Major Alterations: A. Purpose: The purpose of these regulations is to achieve harmony with the purposes of the applicable zone districts and the goals and recommendations of the Vail Comprehensive Plan for development projects in certain commercial districts. In order to achieve these outcomes, all major alterations, as defined in this section, require review and oversight by the Planning and Environmental Commission. B. Applicability. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units and timeshare units, additions of commercial space or common element greater than 1,000 square feet, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as Town of Vail Page 4 determined by the administrator) in the Public Accommodations, Public Accommodations 2, Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use 2. C. Application required. An application for a major alteration shall be submitted, with application submittal requirements and required fees on file with the Community Development Department. D. PEC Review Required: All applications meeting the applicability section above shall be reviewed in a public hearing by the planning and environmental commission as a major alteration in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, deny the application, or table the application to a future hearing. Approval of a major alteration by the planning and environmental commission shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. E. Criteria for review: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed major alteration. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed plan complies with all applicable criteria. 1. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. 3. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. 4. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. 5. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. 6. Compliance with the purpose statement of the subject zone district, Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. F. Appeal: The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. G. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a major alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Town of Vail Page 5 H. Design Review. Design review of a major alteration shall occur in accordance with Chapter 12-11 of this title. ***The following text will be deleted: 12-7A: PUBLIC ACCOMODATIONS DISTRICT 12-7A-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. 12-7B: COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CCI) DISTRICT: 12-7B-7. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Subject To Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor Town of Vail Page 6 dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) as follows: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Application Date And Procedures: Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information in subsection A2 of this section; provided, however, that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later than three (3) weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the planning and environmental commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the biannual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting following the submittal dates listed above, the administrator shall inform the planning and environmental commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The administrator shall commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial planning and environmental commission meeting. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than 100 square feet) in any year during which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this subsection A3. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration". b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred (100) square feet, applications to alter the exterior rooflines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be submitted on a designated submittal date for any regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this subsection A3b shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shall not be a freestanding structure. c. A single property owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of one hundred (100) square feet or less on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission at any of its regularly scheduled meetings. 4. Work Sessions: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals shall proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission. The administrator shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with subsection 12-3-6C of this title. Following the work session, and the submittal of any additional material that may be required, the administrator shall schedule a formal public hearing before the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. Town of Vail Page 7 5. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 6. Compliance With Comprehensive Applicable Plans: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in section 12-7B-1 of this article; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village master plan, the town of Vail streetscape master plan, and the Vail comprehensive plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and the Vail Village design considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 7. Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration under subsections A5 and A6 of this section shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 8. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the planning and environmental commission unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. 9. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within the CCI district shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. B. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the design review board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in section 12-7B-1 of this article; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village design considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. 12-7C: COMMERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2) DISTRICT: 12-7C-5: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) as follows: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that Town of Vail Page 8 comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Application Date And Procedures: Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information in subsection A2 of this section; provided, however, that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later than three (3) weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the planning and environmental commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the biannual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting following the submittal dates listed above, the administrator shall inform the planning and environmental commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The administrator shall commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial planning and environmental commission meeting. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than 100 square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this subsection A3. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration". b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred feet (100), applications to alter the exterior rooflines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be submitted on a designated submittal date for any regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this subsection A3b shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shall not be a freestanding structure. c. A single property owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of one hundred (100) square feet or less on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission at any of its regularly scheduled meetings. 4. Work Sessions: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, all submittals shall proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission. The administrator shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled planning and environmental commission meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with subsection 12-3-6C of this title. Following the work session, and the submittal of any additional material that may be required, the administrator shall schedule a formal public hearing before the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. 5. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 6. Compliance With Applicable Comprehensive Plans: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC2 district as specified in section 12-7C-1 of this article, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan and the Vail Village design considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Town of Vail Page 9 7. Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration under subsections A5 and A6 of this section shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, bulk, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 8. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the planning and environmental commission unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. 9. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within the CC2 district shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. B. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the design review board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CC2 district as specified in section 12-7C-1 of this article; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village design considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. 12-7H: LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 1 (LMU-1) DISTRICT 12-7H-7. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building that is not a major exterior alteration as described in subsection B of this section shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. 1. Submittal Items Required: The submittal items required for a project that is not a major exterior alteration shall be provided in accordance with section 12-11-4 of this title. B. Major Exterior Alteration: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. 1. Submittal Items Required, Major Exterior Alteration: The following submittal items are required: a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. b. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. Town of Vail Page 10 C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review. If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. 12-71: LIONSHEAD MIXED USE 2 (LMU-2) DISTRICT: 12-71-7. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, timeshare units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Any project which requires a conditional use permit shall also obtain approval of the planning and environmental commission in accordance with chapter 16 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. B. Submittal Items Required: The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. D. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. Town of Vail Page 11 E. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission listen to the presentation, ask relevant questions, and provide a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the proposed code amendment language. Further, Staff requests this item be tabled to the October 8, 2012 hearing. Town of Vail Page 12