Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRucksack PEC Minutes Exerpt6. A request for a final review of an exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Rucksack Condominium Building and the Scott Building, located at 288 Bridge Street/part of Lot C and Lot D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1. (PEC070076) Applicant: Jeffery B. Selby, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Scot Hunn ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Viele SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITIONS: 1. The Developer shall be required to provide a building code and fire code analysis with any submittal for building permit, 2. The Developer shall address any and all issues and provide all necessary details related to trash storage and access located on the east side of the Bridge Street Building (a.k.a. The Rucksack Condominiums Building and Scott Building), in conjunction with any Design Review application. 3. The Developer shall resolve all issues regarding drainage from the existing and proposed building(s) on to adjacent properties; the provision of gutters, downspouts and other drainage methods tied into existing Town of Vail storm sewer improvements may be required as revisions to building permit set of drawings with any building permit application. 4. The Developer shall submit final details in conjunction with any Design Review application for final review, depicting any and all necessary hardscape, grading and drainage improvements at the rear (east) side of the combined properties, for the specific purpose of providing adequate and code compliant egress from the Rucksack Condominiums Building to a public way. 5. The Developer shall ensure that all new materials, sizes, textures, detailing and colors blend or compliment those materials not being replaced and that any portions of the building that need repair and/or replacement are included in the scope of this project in conjunction with any Design Review application. 6. The Developer shall submit a Design Review application for any and all new exterior signage for the property; a sign program pursuant to Section 11-8-2, Vail Town Code will be required. 7. The Developer shall be required to submit a detailed and final lighting plan, showing all existing light fixtures to be removed, as well as all new fixture locations, fixture types and lumens/output; such plan should be accompanied by cut sheets for each proposed fixture in conjunction with any Design Review application. 8. That the Developer pays in full, the employee housing mitigation fee, as established by the Town of Vail Staff and in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 23, Commercial Linkage, and Chapter 24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, prior to the issuance of the building permit for The Bridge Street Building project. 9. That the Developer pays in full, the traffic impact fee, as established by the Town of Vail Staff based on the net increase in trip generation, prior to the issuance of the building permit for The Bridge Street Building project. 10. The Developer shall, within 24 hours following any action by the Planning and Environmental Commission to approve File No. PEC070076, present to the Town of Vail Community Development Department a plan to mitigate and otherwise rectify the existing conditions of the Rucksack commercial space. Such plan shall be implemented within forty-eight (48) hours of any such final approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall specify the means of providing screening or other window covering, treatment or concealment on all windows with visibility from, and/or frontage on Bridge Street for the purpose of concealing any and all unsightly construction activity occurring within the commercial space located at 288 Bridge Street. Commissioner Pierce recused himself as his firm is the architect on the project. Scot Hunn gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He highlighted the changes made since the last review of the project. The primary change was the incorporation of the Scott Building and a new dwelling unit. He noted that any motion requiring an employee housing fee and traffic impact fee reference the applicable sections of the Town Code, rather than a specific dollar amount. Jay Peterson, applicant’s representative, agreed with Staff’s recommendation to modify the conditions. Jay Peterson also noted that the applicant has begun screening the store windows. Ron Carlson, representing 286 Bridge Street, noted their concerns about the roof being raised by four feet. He believes this will block light and air to his client’s windows. He also believes this will negatively impact his client’s views. He noted concerns about how the sun/shade analysis affected his client’s property. Commissioner Kjesbo clarified that the overall roof height changes, but it is within the allowable height. Scot Hunn confirmed. Commissioner Viele questioned if there are any adopted view corridors. Scot Hunn referred to the attachments within the Staff memorandum. Mr. Carlson proposed additional study be done to determine if the proposed addition is located within the view corridor. Kaye Ferry, Vail Chamber, referenced condition number 9 and noted that the Chamber has previously asked the owner to allow displays to be placed in the storefront windows. She recommended something be placed in those store windows to make the building and the Town appear attractive. She does not believe the present solution is acceptable, and the applicant should be required to do something decorative with the windows. Ross Davis, representing the Mill Creek Court Association, noted that their concerns were addressed by the acquisition of the Scott Building. They have concerns about any future use of the building for a bar or restaurant. He also noted concern about the proposed trash removal. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Home Owners Association, questioned the review process for trash removal. His clients were comfortable with the idea of trash removal from the rear of the building, but greater detail is required. He also asked for clarification about circulation at the rear of the building. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, noted that there is no adopted view corridor affecting the neighbor and the proposal does not block all light and air to the neighbor’s windows. He noted that the neighboring A&D Building defines the view corridor, not the subject building. He noted that the A&D encroaches upon the Scott Building site. He further noted that Kaye Ferry’s group made no financial offer to the applicants for use of their property. The applicant has concerns about insurance, liability, and construction activities and chose not to allow displays within the windows. James Olhson, architect with Fritzlen Pierce Architects, provided details about the trash enclosure details at the rear of the building. Commissioner Kjesbo affirmed that the proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Jay Peterson clarified that Joe’s Deli will continue to use its current enclosure and the new retail and residential will use the rear trash enclosure. Commissioner Kurz noted concerns about the employee housing calculations. He noted that the trash enclosure will be subject to design review. He also note concerns about the present appearance of the building. Commissioner Gunion had no additional comment. Commissioner Tjossem clarified that the neighboring A&D Building blocks the proposed Rucksack Building’s impact to the adopted view corridor. Commissioner Viele noted that his question regarding the view corridor has been satisfied by Staff responding that the neighboring building blocks any affects of this proposal on the adopted corridor. The trash enclosure will be addressed by DRB. While he encourages the applicant to improve the appearance of the present building, but does not agree with requiring the applicant to provide displays for other businesses. He noted that the view may be blocked from the neighbor’s windows, but the building complies with the height limits and both building are allowed to be located on the lot lines.