The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-19 Town Council Minutesr MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING March 19, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 19, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town resident and PEC member, Greg Amsden, requested Council to consider allowing private developers to propose Town of Vail developments rather than hiring consultants to analyze projects and duplicate steps. Greg also suggested opening up the Vail Commons project to local lenders. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of February 6, 1996. B. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.18, Section 18.18.090 Density Control, Medium -Density Family (MDMF) District of the Vail Municipal Code. C. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1996, second reading of First Amendment to the Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan. Mayor Armour read the title in full. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the Consent Agenda with a second from Sybill Navas. Mike Jewett requested the transcript of Item No. Four of the February 6 evening meeting relating to discussion of Resolution 5, Series of 1996, be attached to the minutes as part of the approval. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance Amending . Title 16 (Sign Code) and Title 18, Chapter 18.54 (Design Review Guidelines) of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail planner, Randy Stouder, presented the item and gave the following background: A Technical Advisory Committee, ("TAG"), was formed to guide staff in the formulation of amendments to the Sign Code and Design Review Guidelines that will expedite the development review process for items of minimal complexity. The proposed amendments were reviewed by the DRB and the. PEC, and include the recommendations of Staff, the TAC, the DRB and the PEC. The PEC unanimously (7-0) recommended that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 9 at their meeting on March 1.1, 1996. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes which were requested by Council at their work session that day. Paul moved to approve Ordinance 9, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes as discussed and the motion was seconded by Rob Ford. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number four on the agenda was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.24.020, Members -Appointments -Terms of the Planning and Environmental Commission; Section 2.26.020Arts Board -Appointment; Section 2.26.030 Members - Appointments -Terms of Town of Vail Arts Board; and Section 18.54.020(b) Board Organization. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer, presented the item and provided the following background: At the time of the recent board appointments it became apparent that it was in the best interests of the organization to have a consistent date of termination . for the Planning and Environmental Commission, ("PEC"), the Design Review Board, ("DRB"), and the Arts Board, ("AIPP"). It is believed that the date of May the 1st, being between the seasons, offers the best time for transition of members. Additionally, the AIPP board requested an increase in its membership due to the amount of interest in the community to participate and because an Vail Town Council Evening Meeting MinulosO3119196 increased membership would ease the obligation of members to attend all meetings. Sybill Navas said she thought many locals would be out of Town on May 1, and suggested changing the date to April 1, and other members agreed. Sybill also said she felt the last interview process didn't allow enough time to spend with applicants. Pam felt the recent overwhelming number of individuals responding to the Town's request for board applicants was a rare occurrence, and suggested that - in the future interviews could be staggered and could take place during two or three work sessions. Mayor Armour suggested that increasing the number of AIPP members might create problems in filling those positions in future years. Sybill then recommended changing the April 1 date to March 31 so date of appointment would not be April Fools Day. Sybill then moved to approve with the condition that the date be changed to March 31, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Fifth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to all for the construction of a Type III Employee Housing Unit in the Cornice Building; to amend the development plans for Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Council was requested by the applicant to table this item to the April 2, 1996 evening meeting. Paul moved to table Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, to the April 2, 1996 evening meeting with a second from Sybill, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number six on the agenda was a request to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. Council was asked to approve or deny the amendment to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. A copy of a letter to Town Planner, Jim Cumutte, from Dave Corbin, Vice President of Development for Vail Associates, outlining the proposed amendment to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan was distributed to council members. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, presented the item along with Jim Curnutte, and Town Manager, Bob McLaurin, and provided the following background: Town Council was being asked to consider a request by Vail Associates, Inc., the applicant, to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. The request would allow the 150 parking spaces in the parking structure to be offered as first Fier parking memberships. This would be an increase from the presently permitted 75 parking memberships provided in Section II. Managed Parking Structure as approved in the development plan. The request did not include a modificatlon to building plans, site or landscape plan or any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units. The requested amendment involved only the operation of the managed parking structure. Dave Corbin, reviewed the goals of the applicant, the previously approved plan, and presented the proposed amendment to the plan. Janet Woodard, who was in charge of selling the project for Vail Associates, updated Council on the issues she was facing in selling the spaces in the proposed structure. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association expressed the neighborhood's desire to keep parking under control. After questions from Council members were addressed, Sybill moved to approve the amendment to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. • Seventh on the agenda was a discussion regarding Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision. Prompted by an earlier phone message to Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen, from local real estate salesman and PEC member, Greg Amsden, and receipt of a letter from local real estate broker, Sue Dugan, Council members received input regarding deed restricted Employee Housing Units in the Town of Vail. Mayor Armor stated that because Ordinance No. 8 had been tabled, the Council was able to include this item on the evening's agenda. Discussion particularly centered around Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbrook Meadows, and the argument of whether or not a potential buyer for that unit qualified as an Eagle County full time employee. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead reviewed definitions and qualifications as outlined in the Town Code, and referenced his memo to Council dated March 19, 1996. Andy Knudtsen informed Council as to how he arrived at his decision that the potential buyer did not qualify for the purchase of the unit. Mr. Bob Borne, developer of the project, suggested revising the restrictive covenant form so that it would clearly state the criteria and to avoid any confusion in the future. Sue Dugan, buyer's agent, felt the covenant was confusing and needed to be changed. Council concerns regarding the various projects and varying requirements for different types of Employee Housing Units were addressed by staff. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed Council members they would have time during the upcoming work session on March 26 to further discuss these issues. Item eight on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had . nothing to add, but briefly reviewed his memorandum, asking council members to review a draft of the upcoming Community Survey. Sybill asked about the "expand street capacity" question under the Transportation and Streets section, and asked if it was referring to the West Vail Interchange. Additionally, she wondered if Question 14 should be included, and suggested Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes03d1MIS rephrasing question 17 relating to "essential services". Bob McLaurin stated that staff would look into Sybill's concerns. There being no further business Rob moved for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. Respectf ly submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ITT ST: ,mc Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon ('Names of certain Individuals who gave public Input maybe inaccurate.) • 9 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting MinutesOVIV96 MAR .1 9 9b -TUC 1 8 : 29 P d�'-tc. Suzanne J. Dugan, Broker �� t�� -:1Uz9 >, 9 %0 2642 Kinnickinnick Coun • Vail, Colorado USA 816.57 Mailing Add«: P.O. Box 3768 • Vail, Colorado USA 81658 Town of Vail Town Couns4l (970) 4760764 FAX (970) 476-2564 fax: 970 479-2157 March 19, 19% :Dear Members: .:I am writing td yati concerning Pete Baffin, a Town and County employee, who is trying to buy his first` home, at Innsbruck Meadows. I mentioned his situation briefly, at the workshop on Vail Commons, at your. February meeting. Pete called Community Development in January (I believe) to get the application to fill out for the Town .(per #8 on the Type l i l Employee Housing Covenant). The Town didn't have one but he was asked to write a letter stating he worked in Eagle County. He did that but then, that wasn't good enough. He was asked to bring in a letter from his employer. Then that wasn't good enough,, He was asked to prove he worked in Eagle County by bringing in his pay stubs. Then I was told by Andy Knutson that he didn't make enough money. When I explained that most of his income came from tips Andy wanted proof of that in the form of a tax return. Pete doesn't show that on a tax return.: I mentioned Pete recently came into a trust. Andy told me the Town didn`t Want those type of people in these employee units (just as one counsilwoman expressed the same 'if the workshop meeting). Then the next thing was, the Town had to prove that Pete worked 30 hours a -week ;so, again, verification of employment was provided by the employees and I believe, the bender involved in this transaction. Andy Knutson then says Pete just made it qualifying on the hours worked (30.9) and the application was going to Tom Moorehead for approval. Now, to -day, I hear Pete is rejected because he doesn't qualify? Now there is another guideline that has come, up that 'requires 12 weeks of consecutive weeks of employment (or something to that effect)? Land Title faxed me this covenant Jan 31, 1996. I have read it. Nowhere have I found any "reference to Purchasers having to qualify with the 30 hours a week. #3a) only says that. the owner has to be a permanent resident. 92 references tenants in Type 1 I I units must be full-time employees and work 30 hours a week (there is no mention of 12 consecutive weeks or what ever Tom Moorehead is now stating as part of this covenant). Therefor, Pete qualifies unless this is ;. • the 'Townes way of keeping trustfiinders out of these type of units? There are two types of trustfunders, One's that don't work and those who work, enjoy working and give to the community. Pete is the latter. t; It. w.iis my understanding that the Town wanted to attract permanent residents back into the town limits? Vail is loosing permanent resident families to down valley due to no kids in Vail and i school districts. Vail always attracted the singles but now I'm hearing that they prefer Avon to Vail,"' If you want to attract people back to Vail then you need to make it attractive to come back. Giving people the run around is not the way. It's hard enough to find the right property to buy then have to go through the fiusimtion of the loan application without having then to go through the third degree with the Town. And for what reason when the Covenant does not request all this MAR - 1 9- 9 G T U E 1 8: 2 8 P- 02 i proof (again #3 on the Covenant). I am advising Pete Battin to come before Town Counsil and request it hearing on this issue. Unfortunately, I have not been able to reach him to -day and I know he will not be happy as he has been waiting to close on this unit and has ordered Sincerely, L Sue Dugan Copy to Pete Battin 0 ��rn llJt). Lt mall Associates Dal Estate Group, Inc. Y . . . • . . ♦ • . . . Y ♦ . . . . . . . . . ♦ . . . . . ♦ . . . . . a . . . . . . Y . G n F tl • v a Y 46 March 19, 1996 e Mr. Jim Cumutte Senior Planner Town of Vail IMI Vail Valley Drive Vail, Co 81657 VIA FACSIMILE 479-2452 RE: Proposed Amendment to Golden Peak Operational Management Plan Dear Jim: Vail Associates has continued to market the first and second tier parking memberships for the Golden Peak base facility parking structure since the Council's # approval of the project in December. We have successfully marketed all of the 75 first tier memberships, but have only sold 16 of the second tier memberships, As you may recall, the second tier consists of up to 450 memberships, 200 of which were contemplated for the first offering to the public, ftvkl waofVail eeewrCreek1Relpl% Clearly the market reception to the two memberships has been strongly weighted in Auv%ftad"and dacheler6WCnV7Uage" favor of the "guaranteed" parking space of the tier one membership, The objection to the tier two membership is that the member can not always be assured that a space is available for them and lacking that assurance they do not wish to substantially invest in the membership which would pay for the parking structure. Given this market objection to the second tier product Vail Associates proposes amending the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan to provide for up to 600 members, an increase of 75 members from the current 525 permitted. In addition, the applicant proposes that the first tier could consist of up to 150 members who have a right to park in an identified, reserved parking space, In effect what we are proposing is that the operational management plan allow for both types of parking memberships, the tier one and the tier two, but that the marketplace would determine the mix of these memberships types and that theoretically all of the spaces could be sold as tier one memberships. trw�ss�oFatx, satautra�ur rmnun�nus 137 Benchmark Road . PO Box 959 a Avon, Colorado . 61620 . phone 970 845 2535 . fax 970 $45 2555 % a'd dnoas '3'a'0'A W1d6S:TT 96, 6T HW Q Mr, Jim Curnette March 19, 1996 Page 2 The applicant understands and presumes that the Town's concern with the potential increase of tier one memberships will be the utilization of the spaces. Vail Associates likewise does not wish to invest a very significant sum of money in this parking structure and have the spaces stand idle. However, we anticipate utilization of the spaces, whether tier one or tier two will be quite high. We have conducted a survey of the existing tier one members and of the 36 members responding, 33, or 91%, indicated that they would either be frequent users of the facility themselves or would participate in a rental pool and place their parking spaces into the pool for use in their absence by the public under our operational management. Only 3 of the 36 respondents (9%) said they were not interested in participating in a rental pool. Vail Associates further proposes to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management flan to explicitly provide for the creation of a rental pool program for the first tier parking memberships, We propose adding the following language to paragraph 2, page 7, beginning with the following as the third sentenoe,, The first tier members will be invented to place their parking space in a rental pool program available to guests, members of the skiing public, employees, or other persons who must call and reserve available spaces in advance. The first tier members participating in this program would advise or notify the club manager of those times or occasions when they would not be using their parking space and it would be available for rental by reservation. The proceeds from the first tier rental program would be split so that 50% of the revenues achieved would go directly to the member's account offsetting their dues and 50% would go to the operating expenses of the Golden Peak Passport Clubhouse, indirectly offsetting or reducing the dues requirements of the members. Vail Associates as manager of this facility will directly market these available parking spaces to parents of the Golden Peak Childrens Ski School program, parents of DEVO and other special programs participants, private ski lesson customers and identifiable front range guests. Beginning in the 1996/97 ski season ski school clients will be able to phone in reservations for the ski school and through a computerized reservation system Vail Associates will offer daily parking in the Golden Peak structure from the pool to these customers and guests and will provide a phone number for parking reservations available to the public. 0 6.d d"IO89 '3'a'TA WId6G-TT 96, 6Z 610W 6 Mr. dim Curnette March 19, 1996 Page 3 The combination of frequent use by first tier members, the financial incentives to pool available spaces into a rental program, and the direct marketing efforts for these pooled spaces should result in high utilization of the first tier spaces. The creation of the underground parking stnmcture has always been a unique and complicated component of the Golden Peak development plan. A number of planning and development goals hinge on the success of this unique structure and its management. The neighborhood has sought a controlled access underground structure to reduce traffic volumes, adverse traffic impacts and visual clutter in the neighborhood, Vail Associates has favored the concept of this structure to achieve this traffic control, as well as to increase the site surface areas available for skier drop-off, skier and pedestrian circulation, and green space. The only complicating factor for Vail Associates has been the creation of a mechanism to pay for this extraordinary parking solution. The Town's goals have been to insure that there is no net loss of physical parking spaces nor a reduction in utilization of these parking spaces that would be equivalent to a net loss of parking available to the public. It is our belief that the proposed amendments to the Operational Management Plan will continue to meet these multiple goals of controlling traffic, increasing the site surface area for other beneficial uses, and achieving high utilization of the parking constructed. We therefore request the Council's approval of this proposed revision to the Operational Management Plan. Very truly, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. David G. Corbin Vice President of Development cc: rim Lamont, EVHOA DOC:it 0 t•d dnoN5 '3'a'd'A Wd00:2F 96, ST ebb! �K� Y�ss��ot�r er.us�otrse d� GOLDEN 1'EAK Charter Member Utilization Survey 03/18/96 11:59 AM An informal phone survey of 73 Charter members' expected utilization of their designated parking space at the Passport Clubhouse at Golden Peak was conducted during the period of March 4. 15; 1996, The survey produced the following results: • 73 Charter Members • 36 responding (= 49 %response rate) ♦ 33 will be ftequent users or would participate in a rental pool concept for the following reasons: ♦ front range residents ♦ second homeowners in Vail Valley • living in Vail Valley ♦ community awareness of parking availability ♦ 3 are not interested in participating in a rental pool Percentage of utilization for the responding sample of members - 33 of 35 = 91.7% Frequent use was described as utilization of a designated parking space: ♦ multiple use during the week and over the weekends ♦ warm season use for various activities: ♦ Bravo attendance ♦ Village shopping ♦ Restaurant dining in the Village or at Passport Clubhouse throughout the year 27N HANSON RANCH ROAD PO. DOX 7 VAII., 0-) 8169N 970-479-V)OO PA%'9YO-47V-60ID S d d O65 •3'6'ti•A Wd00:ZT 96, 61 HJW .ry{& PASSPORT CLUa} 011SE GOLDEN 1IRAK CHARTER PASSPORT RENTAL POOL PROGRAM Descrintionl Charter Passport holders will be incented to place their parking space in a rental pool program available to guests of Vail Mountain. Rental Program arket: Children's ski school parents, DRV0 parents, private lessons, and Front Range guests: • Starting in the 1996/97 ski season, ski school clients will be able to phone in their reservations. At the time of confirmation, they can be prompted on whether they would like to have parking space at Golden Peak for the day of their lesson, subject to availability of spaces in the rental pool for that day. Incentives to Join Rental Prneram: All proceeds from the rental program will be split as follows: 6 501/16 goes directly to member's account offsetting their annual dues 50% goes to the Passport Clubhouse, indirectly offsetting dues • More: personalized serviceibetter management of parking spaces • Community -minded Operadonal/Managr_eement Tactics • Computer reservations system, similar to a golf tee time or hotel reservation system. • Users can call in using the phone key pad to type in menu choices. They will receive confirmation of a parking space or they will leave a telephone number for the waitlist. 00 The system will assign parking on a first come, first serve basis with the ability to prioritize users based on usage frequency, • The system will handle Signature membership reservations as well as Rental Pool reservations, 27H 1.1AN,()N RANCH I+.UAl7 RO. ROX 7 VAII„ (',O 81653 970•479.Hoo0 TAX 97().47`)•8010 9'd d u6 o 'Yd'd'A WcITQ:2T 96, ST dIUW MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Randy Stouder, Town Planner Susan Connelly, Community Development Director RE: Proposed Design Review Process and Sign Code Modifications DATE: March 19, 1996 In response to the 1995 Community Survey results which indicated frustration with the existing Design Review guidelines and process and to the Community Development Department's need to."do more with less", staff has spent the last several months reviewing Town codes and identifying areas for procedural improvement. We seek to achieve two goals: (1) to improve customer satisfaction and (2) to improve staff efficiency and, thus, availability to respond proactively to other community planning needs (such as revising the GRFA regulations, the Community Planning process, and Lionshead redevelopment). Early in the effort, staff enlisted members of the community who were experienced with the TOV's design review process to serve on a technical advisory committee (TAC) to have "framework discussions" upon which the staff would "build" recommendations for specific code modifications. Summaries of the TAC framework discussions held on October 5 and October 25, 1995 are attached hereto for your review. The staff's proposed recommendations were reviewed in worksessions by the Design Review Board (DRB) on February 21, 1996 and by the Planning and Environmental Commission (AEC) on February 26, 1996. The final PEC review and unanimous favorable recommendation occurred on March 11, 1996. The essense of the proposed code modifications is: A. SIGN CODE. Staff would assume review and approval authority overall requests for new signs, using the same criteria now used by the DRB. DRB would have the authority to call up a staff decision. All new sign programs would continue to he reviewed and approved by the DRB. B. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. The proposed amendments would clarify the distinctions between the staff s and the DRB's review and approval authority and authorize staff to determine compliance with the Design Review Guidelines on applications of minimal complexity. Such items would include: any applicaiton to modify an exissting building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and that is generally consistent with the architectural design, including but not limited to exterior building finish materials, exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennae, satellite dishes, windows, skylights, and minor commercial facade imrovements outside the commercial core areas of the Village and Lionshead, as well as site improvements or modifications, including driveway modifications, site grading, site walls, and installation of accessory structures and recreational facilities. DRB would continue to have the authority to call up a staff decision. (Please refer to the actual ordinance language at page 10 for detail.) To assist Council in its deliberations on the proposed code modifications, enclosed herewith in addition to the summaries of the two TAC meetings and proposed Ordinance No. 9 Series of 1996 is a copy of the March 11, 1996 PEC Memorandum and excerpts of minutes of the March 11, 1996 PEC meeting. Staff will look forward to answering any questions you may have at the worksession and the evening meeting. It DESIGN REVIEW TAC MEETING SUMMARY Thurs. October 5, 1995 PRESENT: Sally Brainerd, Tom Braun, Pat Dauphinais, Diana Donovan, Jay Peterson, Bill Pierce, Henry Pratt, Hans Woldrich (Jim Morter submitted written comments which were read to the group) AND STAFF: Susan, Mike, Jim, Randy, George, Lauren (Bob McLau rin gave opening remarks) FOCUS: Framework Discussion OUTCOME: Consensus re: 1. Leave with DRB : New construction, demo/rebuilds, major commercial remodels and all commercial alterations in CCI and CCII, and sign programs. 2. Staff will approve: Signs, lighting, canopies, colors, additions and alterations, site improvements, retaining walls, fences, and landscaping_ 3. We mast strictly enforce the requirement for complete submittals. 4. Reduce redundancy of projects going to both PEC and DRB. (Decide what should go where under what circumstances.) 5. Spell out in regulations and applications exactly what level of detail and submittal is required at each stage. 6. Staff must be aware of neighborhood context when reviewing applications. ZONING ISSUES RAISED (for future review): 1. GRFA 2. Height restrictions/ interpretations 3. Site coverage limits NEXT STEPS: 1. TAC. and Staff will submit proposed substantive changes to design review guidelines (or staff interpretations) by Friday, October 13 (to Randy Stouder).. . 2. TAC and staff will meet again on Wednesday, October 25 from 10 a.m. to noon in ComDcv Large Conference Room. COMMENT: We can expand the number of staff approvals starting immediately and probably can adopt necessary procedural changes (e.g., sign code changes) by our January 1, 1996 target. Other substantive changes will not be adopt -able by January 1, 1996. At this time, i anticipate adoption by March 1, 1996.. DESIGN REVIEW TAC MEETING SUMMARY Wednesday, October 25,1995 PRESENT: Tom Braun, Pat Dauphinais, Diana Donovan, Jay Peterson, Bill Pierce (Sally Brainerd submitted written comments which were read to the group) and STAFF: Susan, Randy, George and Lauren. FOCUS: Recap of October 5 meeting (Framework Discussion) and continuing discussion of what works, what does not work, and possible improvements SUMMARY OF KEY COM RENTS: 1. All new construction should be reviewed by DRB. 2. Applicants (particularly those unfamiliar with our guidelines/process/prior decisions) do not know what they can and cannot do. There is a perception of arbitrariness. 3. More specific procedural/jurisdictional guidelines are necessary. 4. We need to clarify/ modify the existing (substantive) design guidelines: * review intent (wbat are we trying to accomplish by design review?) * adopt standards (vs. guidelines), where possible * review why we require certain items of information/certain level of detail * clarify submittal requirements and streamline administrative processing of. applications 1 J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FILE Wff FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1996 RE: A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Chapter 54 of Title 18 (Design Review Guidelines) and Title 16 (Sign Code). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Randy Stouder 11 Wlei. W y / / Staff is proposing to make amendments to certain sections of the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. We request that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review the proposed changes and forward a recommendation for approval of the code changes, as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, to the Town Council. The specific, recommended text changes can be found in Attachment #2 of this memorandum. Background information is incorporated into Sections II and III of the memorandum. These two sections explain the rationale behind the code changes. Section V discusses the need for additional, future changes to the Design Review Guidelines. At a worksession held on February 26, 1996, the PEC raised the following issues. Staff has addressed each issue as noted below: 1) A question was raised regarding the notification requirements far adjacent property owners. There is currently an adjacent property owner notification requirement only for sign variances. Staff is not proposing to change the current notification requirements. Neighbors will still see staking for projects that go to the DRB, and will see staking of some items subject to staff review. Staff reviewed the comments of the PEC and felt that adding -a public notice requirement to, the design review process would be -onerous and contradictory to the purpose of the code changes that are proposed herein. The purpose of the code changes is to expedite the design review process for development proposals of minimal complexity and impact. Adding a public notice requirement would lengthen the process and defeat the purpose of these code changes. Therefore, staff would not recommend any changes to the public notification requirements at this time. Staff is proposing the code changes, and has re -structured the Community Development Department for several reasons. Community input is regularly received through an annual Town - wide survey. That survey has regularly indicated a desire to reduce the amount of time the Town takes to review and approve minor development proposals such as new commercial signs, exterior facade changes, minor additions to residential structures, minor changes to the exterior of commercial establishments outside of the core areas, decks, hot tubs, landscaping and other site development improvements. In response to the Community Survey, staff undertook an internal analysis of the Town's development review process. A series of meetings were held with the Town staff members directly involved in the review process. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to represent the people within the community that regularly deal with the Town's development review process. The review process was examined and input gathered from Town Staff and the TAC. It was determined that the Town's •development review process should be changed to reduce processing time for certain types of applications. The preliminary findings of this effort have culminated in the proposed changes outlined below. ulli. M I M 13 Al_ s' ul. ,1 8 9 1 M01ma Ito)W Is) WIM'.41I"IL 1- � :AW11i;lt :.I :.� Based on the community input we have received so far, the Community Development Department has been re -structured and the following changes have been made: 1) Professional Service Coun ter. Service hours have been established and professionals with decision making authority have been located up front at a new service counter area to expedite the processing of certain types of applications that were identified by staff as being of minimal complexity. A Building Liaison Officer and a Planning Liaison Officer have been named and placed at the new service counter to help review development applications and inform the general public of submittal requirements and application review processes. A list of items of minimal complexity has been developed by staff.. These items of minimal complexity generally do not require a review by Town agencies other than the Department of Community Development, and thus can be staff approved, either on -the -spot or within 24 hours (if a site visit is required). The initial list of items of minimal complexity has been attached to this memorandum (see Attachment #1). This list is expected to change or evolve over time. 10 rJ 5 01, •r< !a , The Town's development review application forms are being consolidated and revised to simplify the paperwork for applicants, and to clearly outline submittal infomtation requirements. The Community Development Department is now accepting only complete applications, and rejecting applications that do not contain all the required submittal information, Starting this year, submittal deadlines were changed to noon instead of five o'clock on the submittal deadline dates. The noon deadline gives the Planning Liaison Officer time to check application submittals for completeness the same day they are received. If the application is not complete, immediate contact with the submitting party is be made by the Planning Liaison Officer and the missing items are requested. The applicant then has up to 24 hours to make the application complete. If the applicant cannot submit the required items within the 24-hour grace period, the application is returned and the applicant must start over on a new submittal deadline, 3) DgujQnment Standards: The Town's internal Development Review Team (DRT) is undergoing a development review improvement process (DRIP) to examine potential process changes that will improve application review and processing efficiency. The Town Manager and the DRIP steering committee have outlined a governing philosophy that will guide the DRT in the formulation of a clearly defined . review process and a written set of development standards. The development standards will essentially be a road map for applicants and design professionals. They will guide the development of plans that will gain Town approval with little or no modification, eliminating the review of multiple plan submissions, thus reducing processing time and frustration. The Community Development Department will propose the code amendments in two phases. The goal is to make the development review process more efficient, more understandable and predictable. MAEN :e ; KM 4 INK411 / M 11UP The following is a brief summary of the proposed Phase I code revisions being recommended by staff. The Phase (changes are largely changes to the administrative processing sections of both Titles. Staff proposes to assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs. Stab will review all new sign requests using the same criteria the DRB currently uses. We reiterate the review process here for informational purposes, if a proposed sign meets the technical requirements and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the request will be staff approved. If a sign proposal does not meet the technical requirements and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the applicant will be requested to modify the proposal to conform to the Code or it will be denied. Applicants will be informed of approval or denial in writing. The code -based reason(s) for the Administrator's decision will be cited in the write-up. If the Administrator denies a sign request based on lack of conformance with a design guideline i(e.g. earth tone, architectural harmony, etc.), the applicant will have the right to appeal the Administrator's denial to the DRB, in writing. Staff feels that this is appropriate since design guidelines are by nature, somewhat subjective. Applications rejected because the proposal does not meet a technical requirement (e.g. size, height above grade, etc.) must be revised to meet the standard, or a variance can be filed with the PEC. Variances will be processed by the PEC and evaluated according to the existing Sign Code variance criteria. The review process outlined above will replace the existing process, whereby individual sign applications go to the DRB for review, with variances going to DRB for recommendation and then Council for final review and decision. Staff will notify the DRB of all administrative actions on sign requests by publishing a list of approvals/denials on the next DRB meeting agenda. The decision of the Administrator will become final upon publication on the DRB's meeting agenda. The DRB will have the right to review the Administrator's decision at their next regularly scheduled meeting. The Administrator's decision may be appealed by the applicant, in writing, within 10 days of the decision becoming final. All new sign programs will continue to be reviewed and approved by the DRB. Sign programs will be required for all new or demo/rebuild multi -family residential projects, for new or demo/rebuild commercial projects, and for other significant new developments orredevelopment projects at the discretion of the DRB. Future changes to the Sign Code (Phase I1) will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances from this Title, in favor of a cross reference to other code sections, such as the administrative title (Title 2) or to the administrative chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). 2) sign Review Guidelines (Chanter 54_ Title 18): The Design Review Guidelines are proposed to be amended to clarify the distinctions between the staffs and the DRB's review and approval authority. The goal of these revisions is to take the less complex items off the DRB's plate and allow staff make the decisions of compliance with the guidelines on applications of minimal complexity. Staff can review and approve the items of minimal complexity more efficiently than the DRB. Staff, the TAC and the DRB identified the types of development activities that should be reviewed at the staff level instead of at the board level. Modifications to the DRB guidelines are proposed accordingly. The text of section C(3) of "Preliminary/Final Design Review" portion of the Design Review Guidelines .(page 454c), lists the items that are subject to staff review and approval. Staff proposes to expand paragraph (a) of this section by adding the following items: exterior finish materials (e.g. stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas and satellite dishes, and minor commercial facade improvements outside the commercial core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Staff would also like to add a new paragraph (d) allowing staff to review and approve all site work (e.g. grading, landscaping, retaining walls, etc.) after the initial site development has occurred. Staff believes that these changes do not significantly alter or reduce the review authority of the DRB. Any decision of the Administrator would be noted on the next DRB agenda and would be subject to review by the DRB. Staff intends to exercise its approval authority judiciously, deferring projects to the DRB that could have wide ranging implications or significant impacts to surrounding properties. Special sensitivity will be exercised in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. Neighborhood context will be carefully considered in all staff decisions. Again, further changes to the Design Review Guidelines (Phase II) will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances, and lapse of approval from Chapter 34, in favor of cross references to either Chapter 18.62, "Variances", or to Chapter 66, "Administration". 3) Bh=I Code Change Schedule: The proposed Phase I code changes have been presented to the planning staff, DRT, TAC, DRB and the PEC informally in a series meetings and discussions. The PEC reviewed the proposed changes at a public worksession on February 26, 1996, Staff proposes the following public meeting schedule: • March I Ith - • March 19th - April 2nd - PEC Final Review and Recommendation Council Worksession and 1st Reading of Ordinance Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance In reviewing the Design Review Guidelines for the proposed Phase I code changes outlined above, it became clear to staff that further review and modification of the Design Review Guidelines is necessary. The guidelines have evolved and changed in a piecemeal fashion over the past two decades. The guidelines have become overly complex and are poorly organized. The Town Staff is now considering a major overhaul of the guidelines. For this effort, we am considering utilizing a consultant who has the expertise necessary to accomplish this major task. Staff anticipates that this overhaul will occur over the next twelve months to eighteen months. Staff feels that the design guidelines should, at a minimum. be revised so that they are logically presented in text and graphically illustrated where helpful. Design standards will be quantified to the extent practical. CJ 6 �J A suggestion was made by staff to eliminate duplication of review between the DRB and the PEC for major projects requiring review by both boards. However, the TAC thought that a better solution to resolving this issue was to perform joint work sessions (DRB and PEC) early on in the review process so that the DRB would not be put in the awkward position of wanting to revisit design issues that had aiready been addressed by the PEC and/or the Council. At a worksession held on February 21, 1996, the DRB was asked for input regarding the proposed Phase I code revisions. The DRB was generally comfortable with Staffs proposed code changes. However, the DRB was not in favor of joint worksessions. The DRB felt that there were simply too many decision makers (up to 11 people) present at the joint worksessions for these meetings to be effective. Staff solicited feedback from the PEC regarding this issue at a worksession on February 26, 1996. The PEC felt that the most effective way to get the DRB involved was to schedule the item for an initial worksession with the PEC and then, schedule the item for a subsequent worksession with the DRB within the next week or two. This would allow the PEC to give direction to the applicant on major site development issues, and the DRB to give direction on major design issues at a very early point in the review process. The applicant could then revise the proposal to address the initial concerns or decisions of the PEC and the DRB before the application would be brought back to the PEC for final decision or recommendation to Council. The PEC identified the following types of projects that should be reviewed according to the procedures outlined above: Major SDD Amendments, new SDD's, Major Exterior Alterations in the commercial core areas and other major demo/rebuild projects in the commercial and business districts. • j! O 1�"� i Items of Minimal Complexity or Planning Liaison Officer Approval Items r Ll 8 The Planning Liaison Officer can approve the following items within 24 hours of receipt of a complete application/request: 1. Color changes 2. Landscaping 3. Fences 4. Exterior decks* 5. Window and door +changes* 5. Skylights* 7. Signs on a building that has an approved sign program in place 8. Hot tubs* 9. Changes to exterior building materials* 14. Exterior lighting* 11. Changes to previously approved plans* 12. Re -roof* r� u r * May require the issuance ofa Building Permit from the Building Division fs\everyone\randy\iteme.pro 9 F.Allp-misorwol M-�� EL Proposed Phase I Code Amendments A) Sign Code (Title 16) B) Design Review Guidelines (Title 18 Chapter 54) Note: Only the pages of the Code that are being amended are attached. For a complete copy of either A or B above, as currently adopted, contact Community Development @ 479-2138. it 10 A) SIGN CODE REVISIONS (Title 16; Chapters 16.08, 16,12 and 16.36) 11 Chapter 16.08 ADMINISTRATION Sections: 16.09.010 Appointment. 16.08.020 Responsibilities. 16.08.030 Enforcement. 16.08.040 Appeal. 16.08.050 Amendments. 16.08.010 Appointment. The town manager shall appoint an administrator, who shall administer and enforce this chapter. This position may be combined with another position of the town. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(1).) 16.08.020 Responsibilities. The administrator shall be responsible for such duties as prescribed in this chapter, and shall be responsible for enforcement of the sign regulations. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).) 16.08.030 Enforcement. The administrator may serve notice indicating the nature of any violation, or requiring the removal of any sign in violation of this title, on the owner or his authorized agent. The administrator may call upon the town attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this title, and the town attorney is authorized to institute appropriate actions to that end. The administrator may call upon the chief of police and his authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this title. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).) 16.08.040 Appeal. • A. Appeal ?. Action or determination by tlu�ai�a-tode administrator pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be filet 4 with the Review Board by any applicant within ten days following the action or determination^P: x ift': etit(g ogamda. In the event of appeal, the Design Review Board, after reviewing a report from the administrator, may confirm, revcrse,.or modify the action of the administrator. Failure of the design review board to act within sixty days of the filing of appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the administratw. (Ord. 14 (1982) § lb: Ord. 9(1973) § 3.). 16.08.050 Amendments. The regulations prescribed in this chapter may be amended, or repealed by the town council. (Od. 9(1973) § 4.) 12 Chapter 16.12 ADMBNISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Sections: 16.12.010 Applications and approvals required. • 16.12.020 Application procedures. 16.12.030 Fees. 16.12.01.0 Application and approvals required. It is unlawful for any person to display any sip within the town without complying with the following requirements: A. Completion of the sign application; B. Review b the administrator 1fiC iz:'. Y.... C. Review and anaroval Design Review ynoti€ �& to J • '..� 6 g frrC wy.waJLv..I, w.l.awaue. a.ial..,.,VV w=g..o,..11 w.g..l....gliarat2!'S,permitted gas filled sign, L,...:b......L ubhtiag. D. Approval by the sign administrator for signage not specifically required to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. (Ord.5(1993) §2: Ord.51(1978) § 1 (part).) 16.12.020 Application procedures. The procedures to be followed in fulfilling the intent of the sign ordinance are as follows: A. A sign application for an individual sign or a sign program must be obtained, properly completed, and returned to the sign administrator, B. The sign adrnuiistrator shall accept and review the properly completed sign application. 13 �.[LL7 -d 11YLY tub, .,a(.YJJ ��`/Mr.'w..r .J aYyY�,�/ �V bu✓M JrrJ r, ,ri/ ,1w 1 Y r YVYJ V�w YV1J.Vi1 Y Y rY�.Yw.rby"nmi. V rY �Y.V.rae V iiw VJJ, that the si meets the Ec a�11Y �.r W� J"xraiifled� general requirements of this title, the sign administrator may approve {r,qi. ';li,�`1, .5bE':•+�yf•�•� u.�, rnY—;ir x ryrr. w.. a.�J ..J r Yr.Ya rYY.Y i ✓(. J.�.. Y...(�.�....• The-aiga administrator shall notify the Design Review Board of all administrative • .: decisions at theregularly scheduled me n next re ni The Design Review Board may require that any decision of the sign administrator be reviewed brit at its next regularly scheduled meeting; O-Q; Applications for ' V..yWIYIJww. i ''Y 81gn Proms :.: 4- °�shail be reviewed by the Design Review Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting in the presence of the applicant or his representative following a . determination by the sign administrator that the application has been properly completed. Cr; The Design Review Board will approve, conditionally approve or rc ect the sip.. application based upon its conformance with this title and its aesthetic valu 7. L, ... w:b.a . r 1:Y 11 a . wG, AxY J:bu „j/�%.:Yriav4 rYr ua �, i�� dam; 1) If the Design Review Board determines that the sign program application does not meet' :. ;,... :.�. the technical requirtments, 1,: \ ✓ 1:..:Y J \, J:..,., L :bL. r.r/ ..r.. L r. Y.sthis tide the Design Review Board 44,MW deny the application. Upon denial of an application by the Design Review Board, bawl a lae' zt3iE�ts reqtiptle#, the applicant may resubmit a modified application oS file an a»vlication for a variance*i i� �t • 2) After having determined that the sign program meets the general requirements of this title, the l Design Review Board may■ approve s` fl, Y Jy..,.. Y A,.i Y. J.6.. YY..II.,.....b .,Y r.�r..Y...Y..�.S'ofa"prior rY,..... ✓G. J.b.. Y b' Upon the approval q appiication by a3ty0. ` rob*.: �> Desi Review Board, LLL Y JL .. 'L' Y :.l .I :ll L Y . J.r.. A .Y the gn b� rr r administrator awe aheatrt will -be duly nottfied'� ber d,\, iti of We sign application permit by the ' .; tyDesign Review Board, notification will be given in writing to the applicant specifying the reason for disapproval and making recommendations to bring the sign into conformance with the provisions of this title. 14 11 Q.Ur__ - _U_1�...J , .:...... .... �f this fifle; ff: 1- w 16. ecynnViI.L11S, 11ide. Intheeve- __,"Athe AL"D L. a-e tmm canneff. 16.12. M I . It Fees M the d— lee -of twenty dollars pcT�.&4 41.._A d..., .—A.— L LL., J 1L.- gil.. Chapter 16.36 VARIANCES Sections- 16.36.010 Purpose - Limitations. 16.36.020 Application. 16.36.030 Fee 16.36.040 Hearing. 16.36.050 for-, ap pr*v" Notice of bet 1636.060 16;:36.070 OILrJaf._- 1-1, 16.36.0.W Apt to town council action 16.36.010 Purpose - Limitations. A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title, variance from the regulations may be grantedi. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape-, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of the structure, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B . A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this title. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(1): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (1).) 16.36,020 Application. 15 Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The variance application shall include the application for a sign permit and shall also state the applicant's reasons for requesting variance in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 16.36.070. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(2): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (2).) 16.36.030 Fee. The town council shall set a variance fee sufficient to cover the cost of towns staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at the time of . application and shall not be refundable (Ord, 4(1975) § 2(L)(3): Ord. 9 (1973) § 17(3).) 16.36.040 Hearing. Upon receipt of a pM of-shearina before the the administrator shall seta date boatrd. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(4): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(4).) • I V 1z.;; 6'ran- t .✓: -, .,. YLk- cause ll..., , f 11..% ..W *.-b K, ('0. (.. 1 16.36.050 Criteria for approval Before the bom p'l rig a &t6vir�i atAri acts on a variance application froxr this 3 idi the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the board 0t 11 E~ityJr©ntn{#tm€ must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right- of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises; B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant; C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general; D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use; E. Such other factors and criteria as the Flannittg aw; !` :!1�' lta4i ! desip . .: . L — h deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(7): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(7).) 16 •.i��1y ar.a...� LYWL�I.:::��...�.,�.r:.l►...::. \..:r.l4.l::':i�.w., _/LL r�Yrii✓.A�;.: .l.1 J Lv w1 ..: a Jwj.1 � 4a'U G(la'VIaLIU'4J VF VV4�MV4J YN lL GVVl11J 4VVVJJW' LY 4V'VVi4r6JL � f/'WiJ'MJV ✓1 �+1 LLLIV, V1 L11V L6 y . (c LYL,J 'V'f W rrL' 4 1 1�:, ..,rl1U.. , a :::.:j 'YW 1FW VVVaaLlaVu V N YY V'Y• l .WaWYVV uW 1636.0000 A"10Towa C/ouncii-nclimr: ,y.1L::1� VA-..: , ....r l l -1 JUL-- .G 4...r .��4 ..., .. L Y...J'..:.. ] vba1 w::aurr mhw ry'auvwaL ae t,:. - *ftn noaw, W1w Lv ..0 vY.a..v� submitteL, wrjra... r 1.,JJ,.rjA.,"G. .,..L;W.( 1a�..j..�L...,4:7.V,rL.,,I.J',,. ,.Y.1CdT..,.'.`..,.J d 6.....i LLV LVV WJW' LV 4VVV.. �4J4 ywyVJV `.If LLw LL�LY, Vl �Vll� �V µr�•'VNLIYlM if L]V YVYII+.V� �Vn+tYJ i..ie1atb1rf►r :::a��1r:.:: ✓J�' . .�� '::.%:rw :::, b piroroidr L,. �.1 •A,,1�.. �..� ::l�L/► r:.L::::, 'sb YVaaLYaYY L�r 1�.r. "'�b Lv V4V V. a.aa.aV Y.{4.JYywva.� aa.Vr..aa�Jr �V r'u'.r. V.1 .IQ�L.V.�wV. w �.IIWa�..Y V+1. 1. L4v ILjJ;.v.al ..FW+++...'..Ly �i.ay...:�1® L�✓ta.wi �rw:::ag, .::J�lilJ .!%�...--.� :..:...i.:::.:.: :.: g...:.� VYLW V, la.a',1 JY.. r M „Vr, .,f:a. 4rr:J.V:. r:a I►1r ,:;,il:r.:::i L, :::..:1 ... LSr ..Y�la:r.:.:Li, L ..::....:: �.��tw�ra.c 9 17 B) DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES REVISIONS (Title 18, Chapter 54) 0 r It 16 Chapter 18.54 DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 18.54.010 Intent. 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. • 18.54.020 Board organization 18 54 030. Design approval. :. Ali . I��1'r ln�e�r 18.54.051 Park design guidelines. 18.54.060 Design review fee. 18.54.070 Performance bond. 18.54.080 Administrative policies. 18.54A90 Appeal to town council. 18.54.100 Enforcement. 18.54.110 Lapse of design review approval. 18.54.010 Intent. Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally know for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of man-made structures with the environment. These, characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perma- nent residents participating in community life. These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmfal effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgement in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopments the town council has created a design board (DRB) and design criteria. Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and 19 surroundings. The objectives of design. review shall be as follows: A. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors; B. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein provided; C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape; D. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural land forms and native vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or r.. guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. E. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions contained in Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review board for final determination. The distinction made between those items contained within this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word shall, and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or may. In all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.020 Board organization. A. There is established a design review board (DRB) of the Town of Vail. The DRB should be composed of five members. Four members shall be residents of the town of Vail appointed by the town council and the fifth member shall be a member of the planning and environmental commission of the town. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current design review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the Town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review board. B. The terms of office for the four members at large shall be two years on an overlapping It basis and shall expire on February 1 of the year of termination. The term of office for the planning and environmental commission member shall be three months. C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur whenever a member of the board is 20 removed by the town council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to perform his duties for a period of sixty days, resigns, ceases to be a resident of the Town of Vail, or is convicted of a felony. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current design review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review board. In the event a vacancy occurs, the town council shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy and serve • the remainder of the term of the former member. The board shall select its own chairman and vice-chairman firm among its members. The chairman, or in his absence, the vice- chairman, shall be the presiding officer of its meetings. In the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from a meeting, the members present shall appoint a member to serve as acting chairman at the meeting. All business of the board shall he held at the municipal building of the Town of Vail, unless otherwise specified, with adequate notice given to all interested parties. Three members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but in the absence of a quorum, a lesser number shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date, and in the absence of all members, any staff member shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date. D. The board shall operate in accordance with its own rules of procedure as provided for in Section 8.6 of the Home Rule Charter. The rules shall be filed with the town clerk and maintained in the records of the town, and shall be subject to public inspection; provided, however, that the board shall submit its proposed rules or any amendment thereto to the town council which, by motion, shall approve the rules or amendment and direct their adoption by the board or disapprove the proposal with directions for revision and resubmission. E. The design review board shall meet c mry A- first and third Wednesday of each month. Additional meetings may be called by the design review board or the town staff if such meetings are deemed necessary. Should the staff or the design review board require any additional meetings v6— G— d—L notification of the date 1ef-such ifidiumlo / 1 ,1 . tCtte tl tall. meetings shall be t.r.f�.✓ vi. w.1r �4 r. .t tl.r uV...rr �/. Lr i\...... ✓.11 ri`00 and shall also be found posted within the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail. (Ord. 46(1991) § 1; Ord. 18(1985) §§ 1, 2: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.030 Design approval. A. No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the Town of Vail unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter. The addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall be exempt from this provision. B. It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building permit for any person to commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the zoning administrator and/or DRB and the chief building official. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 21 18.54.040 Material to be submitted/procedures. Items A and B of this section have not been affected by the proposed code changes and therefore are not included here. C. preliminary/final design review. Item 1 of this section has not been a f ecled by the proposed code changes and therefore is not included here. 2. Staff/DRB Procedure, The Department of Community Development shall check all material submitted for design review for compliance with; applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, and with Section 18.54.040C :... If the application is found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Zoningtlode, Subdivision Regulations, and Section 18.54.040(.the project shall bo placed upon the agenda of the next appropriately scheduled DRB meeting in accordance with the required application submittal deadlines on file in the community Development Department Or�i`t. aaiitlr tie €ktree cif this seep, if the application is found not to be in compliance with fite'applicable provisions of the onmg Code and Section 18.54.040{C), the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the zoning administrator's findings. The miring administrator may require any additional items from the applicant as may be necessary for complete and proper design review. a. The administrator or the Design Review Board shall review the application and supporting material, and if the design of the project is found to comply with the objectives and design guidelines of this chapter, the Or Design Review Board shall approve the design of the protect dt iuiicnting such approval in writing,; ud g 09 an dial: If additional items are needed as specified herein to determine whether the project will comply with the purposes, statement and design guidelines of this chapter, the DRB may give preliminary approval or table the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if preliminary approval is given, the board shall specify the conditions and additional and/or modified materials which must be submitted bythe applicant to the Design leview Board of ir, including any changes in the design of the project. The applicant may also table the application to a future meeting for any reason. b, if the project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the Oj�atrat�c or. the Design* Board shall disapprove the design of the project. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the design guidelines with which the design of the project does not 22 comply and the manner of noncompliance. M MUN 4.. RIP the i�ii shall have thirty days to consider and approve or deny an application. The time for action may be extended at the request of the applicant. • d. If changes in the design of the project are requested, the board shall approve, disapprove or request further changes within thirty days of the meeting at which the DRB receives the changes unless an extension is agreed to by the applicant. C. The applicant or his authorized representative shall be present at the design review board meeting. 3. Staff approval. The zmdng administrator may approve any of the following applications: a. Any application to WWWan existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, maG—J. -at d.- including, but MM �Wil not limited t6� go TZ windows, '*Aead, 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 condominium association, if applicable; C. Any application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site; and wapphcation-for site imptov : Sk" i fi* **to, driveway modifications 40 #;msory structures or recreational In the above -specified cases, the zoning -administrator may review and approve the application, approve the application with certain modifications, tb9 Itppttq ton, or may refer the any, application to the Design kcview $oard for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the esign review board. (Ord. 9(1993) § 6: Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.080 Administrative policies. A. it J. ..... ...... ed W to ittli kid Wh .. . ........ .. ."WW 'd.; 23 . wwwl+.auu JL VY WV YuuaFla r.r Y.r �Iu YMNYu a..LuuW.W W1J, 1:1V uyk4"�w",AJf, LY�/l," ..... 1 .}y • fir..` �,7' .:.:,. •. 11 / Vr�•. �.�V�.. he �DLOLor shall �:NNYJi LV �1. 4wj'.Y aV.1V �Y LVWIa summary pf all dectstons made 0�la Bdett; B. A decision " a.- 1— • YaYlfab administrator may be appealed to the design Areview Oboard by the applicant; iadjacent Property owner, :OVVti ufthe The d esrt�n rll eview h oard atxm rn�bcl�a w L1 w tw.w.Y... L rr uu.wY _%at id�iY thc+drJ.b...waw.IaL.laaa...wu�j.au1—•alwrrya�u.wlaw.ILuWUu.wYwalJ.Y�wvJr-nr...WJ Off— w: ':: '.i w: A...w.....8 .. �..W. l 0. The design review board shall consider the appeal in the same manner as the board considers all other applications coming before it. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.090 Appeal to town council. A. ..,v; ,,.: "�► :. � ..3 to the town uacil, .,....L r .....,.r by the applicant,;% adjacent property owner, or by the t$owa n anager. TherfTown c ouncil can also call-up matters by a majority voteto-r—Y .-I. r.J ya YJYa�i. B. '' For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing ten days following the decision or must be called -up by the-kown council at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The eouncil shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its being filed or called up with a possible thirty day extension if the council finds that there is insufficient information. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 24 Galen Aasland had no comment. DRAFT Pam Hopkins asked if the applicant could stain the soffits. Mike Mollica said it should be painted white to match the rest of the building. • Greg Moffet asked what the timing was for the request. Pam Hopkins said next spring of 1997. Greg Moffet suggested that it integrate with La Tour. Greg Amsden made a motion that the request be approved per the staff recommendation on page 8 of the memo with an additional condition that the applicant pay the parking fee prior to the issuance of Building Permit at the prevailing rate. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-1. 5. A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 16 & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder summarized the proposed changes to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. He referred the PEC to Attachment #2 of the staff memo which includes the actual text of the changes proposed. He presented the proposed code changes as outlined in Section IV of the staff memorandum. He stated that the changes being proposed would allow staff to review and approve individual sign requests and minor design review requests. He stated that all staff decisions would be published on the next Design Review Board (DRB) meeting agenda. The DRB would have the ability to "call-up" any staff decision at that meeting. He reiterated that the proposed changes do not remove the right to appeal a staff decision to the DRB, and a DRB decision to the Town Council. He stated that the proposed changes were in accordance with the findings of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that was formed to guide staff in reviewing the code. Randy stated that staff would forward controversial requests on to the DRB for review, especially where an adjacent property owner was raising an objection. He also stated that high profile projects in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas would be sent to the DRB for decision. Randy stated that sign programs will be required on most new or demo/rebuild commercial projects. Randy stated that sign variance requests would be sent to the PEC for review rather than to the DRB and then The Town Council (per current process). Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 4 DRAFT . Greg Monet noted for the record that there was no public comment on this item. Henry Pratt asked if an adjacent property owner could still appeal. Randy Studer said yes. There were no comments from the other Commissioners. Kevin Deighan made a motion for approval of the proposed changes as shown in Attachment 2 of the staff memorandum. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used in the calculation of building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton Mike Molfica, an behalf of Lauren Waterton, listed the 3 options in the memo regarding modifications to the survey policy. Staff was recommending Option No. 2. Greg Moffet noted for the record that there was no public present with any comments. Henry Pratt said that he is not in favor of Option No. 3 or Option 2 since it has hidden cost increases and time increases. He is in favor of Option No. 1. Not raising the height limit Is less burdensome for staff and the Boards and it would not allow people to design to those tolerances. Greg Amsden is in favor of Option No. 2, since the bulk of people build within height limits. Kevin Deighan is in favor of Option No. 2 for the reasons stated by Henry Pratt. Galen Aasland agrees with Henry. He doesn't like Option No. 2, since it increases costs and time with the surveying. It is not making It.easier for people in Town. Diane Golden had no comment. Gene Uselton thinks Option No. 2 raises costs and increases time. He feels with Option No. 2, you know in advance what the ridge will be. ?????????????????? Greg Moffet is in -favor of Option No. 2. He has the same reasons as Gene Uselton and Greg Amsden. Greg Amsden made a motion, per the staff memo, for approval of Option No. 2. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Planning and Environmetnal Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 5 r {1 �i TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road `pail, Colorado 81657 70-479-2100 AX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY March 20, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MARCH 21 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Art in Public Places (AIPP) Update AIPP Board Chairman Kathy Langenwalter gave an update on the organization's plan to spearhead efforts to select and raise funds for an art piece at Seibert Circle, located at the top of Bridge Street. The goal is to complete the project prior to the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. Council members agreed to consider a variety of design options, including a possible water feature. AIPP also.is seeking applications for its temporary art exhibition program. For more information, contact Langenwalter at 476- 4506. --Red Sandstone Employee Housing Development The Council gave its approval to prepare an agreement between the Town and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District for a locals housing development on Red Sandstone Road. The agreement would combine 1.2 acres of property owned by the water district with adjacent land which is scheduled to be turned over to the town by the U.S. Forest Service upon completion of the Land Ownership Adjustment agreement. The site would accommodate construction of 12 to 20 townhouse and/or condominium units for sale or rent (to be determined) to be controlled proportionately by the water district and the town. Water district board member Pat Dauphinais said the development is motivated by the desire to house water district employees in Vail. Currently, no water district employee lives east of Dowd Junction. Similarly, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the town proposes to designate the town's share of the units for critical TOV employees for the "public good of the community." Only a handful of the town's critical • employees live in Vail. Under the agreement: VVCWD would be the developer; the town's participation would be dependent upon completion of the land transfer from the Forest Service; TOV would initiate a rezoning of the Forest Service property, while the VVCWD would initiate rezoning of its property; the project could include free market units, up to 25 percent of the total number of units, although only to be included as a last resort to make the locals units affordable; the two partners would jointly convey the land to a homeowners association; construction financing would be on a pro rata basis; and deed restrictions on the units would be the same as on the Vail Commons units (if �#* (more) RECY'CLEDPAPER Add 1/1-lighlights owner occupied) or other TOV employee housing unit restrictions for renters, with the addition of a right of first refusal for each of the partners to purchase its share of the resale units. Noting two letters of opposition by surrounding property owners, Councilman Ludwig Kurz said the Council's political will and fortitude will be tested on the project. The development process will include public hearings on the rezoning requests and a series of public meetings on the project's site plan as it moves through PEC and DRB review. Dauphinais said the water district owns two other sites and hopes to come back to the town with additional locals housing ideas in the future. For details on this project, contact Andy Kundtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Information Update on the Vaii Commons Lottery The Council (with Mike Jewett excusing himself from the discussion) reviewed a timetable of the Vail Commons lottery process which shows applications becoming available March 29. Prospective homeowners would then have until April 25 to prequalify with a lender and submit the application. The lottery drawing is scheduled for May 20. Units would be selected and contracts would be signed by each lottery winner by May 31. It is anticipated that some of the townhomes will be ready for occupancy in September 1996 with the remainder completed by January 1997. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. --Discussion of Sign Code and Design Review Modifications In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed recommendations to modify the town's Sign Code and Design Review guidelines to help improve customer satisfaction and to improve staff efficiency. The recommended changes allow additional staff approvals on specific items to help streamline the review process. See evening briefs for more details, or contact Randy Stouder in the Community Development Department at 479-2150. --Information Update The Council agreed to consider a concept to modify the existing prohibition on conversion of accommodation units to condominium units if the conversion would increase occupancy rates ("warm beds") within the facility. A discussion date has not yet been scheduled. After getting no responses to a public notice for request for proposals, the Council agreed to negotiate a contract with an architect and a contractor to design renovation of the terminal building within the Vail Transportation Center. The renovation work is • expected to be completed this summer. --Council Reports Ludwig Kurz attended a board meeting of the Colorado Ski Museum. He said the museum's activities include a focus on the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships and obtaining accreditation by the American Museum Association. (more) Add 2/Highlights Paul Johnston attended a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in which discussions continue on a joint location for the Chamber and an annex for Eagle County. At a Leadership Coalition meeting, Bob Armour said the focus was on housing and the possibility of creating a non-profit housing coalition to address the issue. Armour also said he attended the Vail Community Task Force meeting along with Rob Ford in which the peak and nonpeak programs were reviewed and a proposal to formalize the Vail Host program to be administered by the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau was presented. Also, work continues on developing the framework for a community plan, Armour said. Task Force members will make a presentation to the Town Council on April 2. Because of conflicting meeting schedules, Sybill Navas wondered if anyone else on the Council was interested in serving as the town's representative on the Channel 5 board. --Other In response to a question by Councilman Mike Jewett, Bob McLaurin said a discussion on the potential use of Real Estate Transfer Tax funds for affordable housing will be scheduled for initial review, along with other housing ideas, at the March 26 work session. Sybill Navas suggested adding a question to the Town of Vail Community survey to probe support for modifying use of the Real Estate Transfer Tax. It was also suggested to ask the community if it would favor using any open space parcels for affordable housing. Kevin Foley, Vail's representative on the Eagle County Transportation Authority, said he will need feedback soon regarding the town's level of interest in the rail corridor issue. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Greg Amsden, a Vail real estate broker, requested the Council consider allowing private developers to propose projects to the town for town -owned parcels rather than hiring consultants to analyze and duplicate steps. Amsden was referring to the Public Works facility renovation and employee housing project. He also suggested that the • Vail Commons housing mortgage financing be opened to local lenders. --Consent Agenda Second reading of housekeeping ordinances on the town's employee pension plan, the medium -density family district of the Vail Municipal Code and approval of the Feb. 6 evening minutes with the addition of a transcript of the proceedings were approved by a 7-0 vote. (more) Add 3/Highlights --Sign Code and Design Review Modifications The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance amending both the Sign Code and Design Review guidelines to help expedite the development review process for items of minimal complexity. For example, the changes allow for staff approval of minor commercial facade changes rather than taking the request to the Design Review Board (DRB) for consideration. Also, town staff would assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs, using the same criteria now used by the DRB. The changes would have no impact on DRB's authority to call up a staff decision. For more information, contact Randy Stouder in the Community Development Department at 479-2150. --PEC, DRB and AIPP Appointments The Council voted 7-0 to approve on first reading an ordinance which would set March 31 as the annual date to appoint Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) , Design Review Board (DRB) and Art in Public Places (AIPP) board members. Additionally, the Council approved expansion of the AIPP board from 9 to 11 members. --Major Amendment to the Cornice Building Special Development District Upon request of the applicant, this ordinance was tabled to the April 2 evening meeting. It --Request to Amend the Golden Peak operational Management Plan The Council voted 7-0 to amend the management plan by increasing the number of premium for -sale parking spaces from 75 to 150. Dave Corbin, vice president of development for Vail Associates, said the change was needed based on VA's inability to successfully market the second tier shared parking spaces. To date, VA has sold all 75 of the first tier spaces, but only 16 of the second tier memberships. The change to the management plan only impacts operation of the 150-space managed parking structure, it does not impact the Golden Peak ski base building design, site or landscape plan, square footage or the number of dwelling or accommodation units. For more information, contact Jim Curnutte in the Community Development Department at 479-2142. --Discussion Regarding Employee Housing Unit 56 at Innsbrook Meadows Town Attorney Tom Moorhead provided an overview of regulations and definitions relating to employee housing units and restated the town's housing goals. The basic issue was the prospective purchaser's eligibility to purchase the type III employee housing unit criteria contained in the town's codes and in the recorded deed restriction. A discussion about clarifying the criteria and the application process followed, which • included comments by Bob Borne and Sue Dugan. --Community Survey The Council shared ideas for revisions to a draft of the 1996 community survey which will be mailed in the next few weeks. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS March 26 Work Session Cinda Rau 10 Year Anniversary 16 PEC/DRB Review Library Update Revisit Town Council Appointments Discussion of Vail Valley Marketing Board & Housing Authority Benefits Housing Discussion April 2 Work Session Site visit, 666 West Forest Road/Austrian Contribution Request Discussion Special Events Banner Discussion Update TOV-VA Community Task Force/Community Strategic Planning Effort April 2 Evening Meeting First Reading, Plumbing and Electrical Code Ordinance Second Reading, Cornice Building SDD Second Reading, Design Review and Sign Code Revisions Second Reading, Term Changes to DRB, PEC, AIPP Proclamation, Take Our Daughters to Work Day Award Certificates of Appreciation to DRB, PEC, HA & AIPP Austrian/Appeal of DRB decision April 9 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Amplified Sound Discussion