Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-02 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., JULY 2, 2013 TOWN QF VAI0 7 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation. (15 min.) 2. ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda: 1) Approval of June 4 and June 18 meeting minutes (5 min.) 3. ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report: Transportation ordinance update - Dwight Henninger (5 min.) PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler 4. ITEM /TOPIC: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Water Supply Update. (10 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Diane Johnson, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and ask questions. 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Extending the Temporary Ban on Marijuana Establishments in the Town, Pursuant to the Newly Enacted Section 16 of Article XVIII of Colorado Constitution (Amendment 64). (15 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series 2013, upon first reading. BACKGROUND: Colorado voters recently passed Amendment 64, which amended Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution by the addition of a new section regarding the personal use and regulation of marijuana. Pursuant to Article XVIII, § 16(5)(f) of the Colorado Constitution, the Town may "prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance ".The Town Council (the "Council ") requested that Town staff study the effects of such marijuana establishments, considering the Town's existing land use regulations and master plan, and thereafter provide information to the Council as to whether such uses should be permitted at any location in the Town. Though the Colorado Legislature has adopted a statutory framework to implement Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has not yet adopted regulations pursuant to the recently adopted statutes. The Council had' /ANMed a temporary ban until August 6, 2013. Town staff needs additional time to gather information, to review the state statutes and forthcoming regulations, and to study the impacts of marijuana establishments and the zone districts in which they should be permitted, if at all. During such time, the Council wishes to extend the temporary ban on the location or operation of marijuana establishments in the Town until January 21, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with modifications or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series 2013, upon first reading. ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvements (60 min) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review concept options for the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvements and direct staff to move through the entitlement process with a preferred concept. BACKGROUND: The Lionshead Parking Structure is in need of entry improvements to improve operational efficiency, safety and aesthetics. Staff has provided Coucil with information on parking equipment and access improvements at previous Council worksessions. Based on previous discussions staff has developed two conceptual options with add options to be presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to move forward through the entitlement process with a preferred concept. 7. ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail town Code, of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, with conditions, of a development review application for the review of a variance from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008 /PEC130009) (45 minutes) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell Michael Suman ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision. BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2013 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved, with conditions, a request to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage and a major exterior alteration or modification to allow for the construction of additions at the Wall Street Building. On May 21, 2013, the Vail Town Council appealed (called -up) the approval of PEC130008 and PEC130009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommend ?ANY fail Town Council upholds their decision of May 13, 2013. 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (7:50 p.m.) 7/2/2013 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation. 7/2/2013 rowH Of vn' �ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Consent Agenda: 1) Approval of June 4 and June 18 meeting minutes ATTACHMENTS: June 4 Town Council Meeting Minutes June 18 Town Council Meeting Minutes 7/2/2013 rnwN of vn' ��r1 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 4:00 P.M. by Mayor Andy Daly. Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor Ludwig Kurz Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Greg Moffet Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Stephen Connelly, local home and business owner, stated the public trust is at risk and has been violated lately. Council's role is to lead and represent this community. Recall has been discussed in the community and there are issues with the town not releasing information as well. He also stated concerns about plastic grocery bags, which leads to higher costs at the landfill. Council should immediately move forward with a ban on the bags. Dale Bugby, local resident, business owner and golfer, stated the 18th hole is at risk and he had circulated a petition which currently carried 245 signatures. The town should enforce the Pulis covenants, which would prevent this. Jonathan Levine, Hummers of Vail, said he'd had no feedback from the Town on a former complaint he'd lodged re: the licensing registration. Stan Zemler, Town Manager, said he would schedule an update at an upcoming meeting, since staff had said they would return to Council after the winter season. The second item on the agenda was Consent Agenda. 1) Approval of May 7 and May 21 meeting minutes. Kurz moved, with a second from Foley, to approve the minutes as corrected. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) had been incorrectly typed as Colorado Department of Revenue. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. On the May 21 minutes, a typo for the start time was corrected along with language clarifying a comment made by Rogers about Subarea 1, Parking /Transit. The corrected wording is: "Rogers voiced a preference for using transit to address environmental concerns." (Page 4). A second correction on Page 5 related to Subarea 6, Gore Creek Preservation. The Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 1 added wording: "Daly said to take a vote. The vote was positive to disallow new buildings, while allowing for possible bridges. By a 4 -3 margin (Donovan, Foley and Daly against), this specific discussion ended." Moffet moved to approve, with a second from Donovan. A vote was taken and the minutes passed unanimously. 2) 2013 Curb /Gutter Repair Project Award. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, advised this item did not require a vote, but from a straw poll of Council, everyone was in favor of approving a curb and gutter repair project for the Main Vail roundabouts to Betone, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $67,538.25. The third item on the agenda was Town Manager Report. There was none. The fourth item on the agenda was appointment of three members to the Local Licensing Authority (LLA) and one member to the Housing Authority (HA). A motion was made by Kurz, with a second from Rogers, to approve Bruno, Steers and Zinn to a two year term on the Local Licensing Authority. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Kurz moved, with a second from Rogers, to appoint Craig Cohn to the Vail Local Housing Authority. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. The fifth item on the agenda was a final review of an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3C, Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decisions, Vail Town Code, appealing a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission approving, with conditions, a development application for amendments to an existing conditional use permit for the Vail Golf Course, located at 1775 Sunburst Drive /Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 and Unplatted Parcels, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Daly introduced the item, stating a public process was to be followed regarding this hearing by a protocol displayed on the south side of the Council Chambers. The first item to be considered was who, of the plaintiffs, was to be admitted standing in this proceeding. Thus, a Hearing to Determine Standing of Appellants was opened. He also noted there would be an opportunity for public comment, which would be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Mire said it is the job of the Zoning Administrator to make a ruling on the appellants, where a decision is made as to which appellants have standing within the Town Code. George Ruther acts as the Zoning Administrator. Steven Collis, attorney for the appellants, introduced himself and began the Presentation of the Appellants. Collis noted the list of appellants was the same list that had been used in the application in the fall of 2012. He requested the appellants be treated as any other applicant to the town. He described the clubhouse proposal as one that would leave his appellants aggrieved with material injuries. He said the Applicant had previously admitted to having no operational plan, and thus, the PEC required plan. There is no way the town can guarantee that the special events center could be controlled at 160 people, and that the 160 applies only to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) area. There could be a tent on the fairway, as well, so this would have a cumulative affect on Sunburst Drive. The neighborhood, the appellants and other users have safety concerns. He said some homeowner's property values have already been affected. Rogers asked if he could provide some examples. Collis said one example comes from the appraisal. Daly said that Montaneros was not a good comparable, given the addition to the redevelopment of other condominiums in Lionshead. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 2 Collis said the appellants will be adversely affected by drunks stumbling down fairways, which becomes even more difficult because the police don't respond to complaints. Deborah Webster, appellant, introduced herself and said she'd just received a long memo from Community Development re: standing. She also noted she has called the police department many times on sound violations over the last 22 years. When questioned how recently she'd called, she said probably 2 -3 years ago. Her home has been on the market for 2 years, but upon inquiry, her realtor must still state the terms of the lawsuit and the situation with the clubhouse. When stating she was concerned about the tents, Daly responded that no tents were allowed within the CUP per the PEC approval. Rogers asked who her realtor was and she replied Barbara Schofield with Prudential. Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak, and there was no one. The Mayor moved on to the Presentation of the Town Staff. Ruther produced a PowerPoint map on the neighborhood and adjacency as it reflects standing. Per his analysis of the criteria and considerations, he stated R. Glenn Hilliard, Deborah L. Webster, the Olson Family 2012 Trust and Starfire Company, LTD. had standing as adjacents, but were not adversely affected or aggrieved. 1835 Sunburst Drive, LLC, Richard J. Callahan and Mary Celeste Callahan, Samuel and Luleta Maslak and Landon Hilliard, III had neither standing nor were they adversely affected and aggrieved. Ruther then read the considerations on which he based his determination. 1) The uses proposed by the applicant are consistent with the purposes of the zone district and achieve the development objectives of the town. 2) An Operations Plan was required by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and town staff, in addition to the already established regulations for noise and lighting. In all instances, the Operations Plan is more restrictive than current regulations, thus affording the appellants greater protections than those afforded to other property owners elsewhere in town. 3) A review of the Town of Vail Police records does not support the appellants claims of lack of enforcement. When questioned by Council on how far back the records went, Ruther said he did not know. 4) Temporary tents are an allowed use in the zone district today and regulated by the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The Operations Plan again affords the appellants greater protections than those afforded to other property owners elsewhere in the town. 5) The reconfiguration of the existing driving range net is not relevant to the CUP approval granted by the PEC. The justifications for its reconfiguration, if pursued, are not directly related to the approval granted. The fairway is not a part of the CUP. Rogers added the Operations Plan does not address the fairway. Ruther said this was not within the PEC scope for review of the CUP. 6) The appellants have provided no competent evidence to support any claims of lack of buffer to protect residences. Setback requirements have been imposed to ensure an adequate separation amongst land uses exists. The allegation of adverse affect is unfounded. 7) The Outdoor Recreation zone district, as most recently expanded with the neighbor's input, provides a significant amount of certainty regarding the use of the property. At a minimum, the appellants are no more aggrieved or adversely affected, if at all, by zoning than any other property owner in town. Ruther added zoning is in place across the entire town. 8) The appellants have provided no competent evidence to support any claims of parking congestion and safety. To the contrary, the applicant has proposed, and the PEC has Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 3 approved, a parking plan which fully complies with the provisions of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The applicant, at the request of the appellants and others, amended the parking plan to remove vehicle parking from Sunburst Drive. This is a limitation not imposed upon any other property owner in the vicinity, so this is unfounded. Ruther added subject to permission from the Police Department, prohibition of parking on Sunburst can still be waived on special occasion for neighbors. 9) The appellants' claims that emergency vehicle access will be compromised due to parking on Sunburst Drive and lack of law enforcement are clearly intended to sensationalize the issue and provide a distraction to the process. Such claims are inaccurate and purposefully false as the appellants have been repeatedly informed that parking is not permitted on Sunburst Drive. And 10) the appellants have been actively engaged in the development review process associated with the development application prior to its inception. Much of the input and feedback provided by the appellants has been incorporated into the final approval and conditions imposed by the Planning Department. After Council deliberation, Moffet moved, with a second from Rogers, to approve standing as adjacents but that none are adversely affected or aggrieved to the four recommendations from Ruther. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0 -1 (Foley). Mayor Daly then moved on to the Public Hearing on the Merits of the Appeal. Collis spoke to the parking on Sunburst Drive, stating anything unexpected will cause parking on Sunburst and there is no room for error. Daly said this will require coordination of the events. Collis said informal events could occur which might not be anticipated. Moffet said overflow parking on Sunburst is currently the status quo. Collis restated this was a safety concern. Rogers said the Operations Plan does not prevent a party or event and the PEC simply approved a remodel of the clubhouse. Collis said the Operations Plan did not support activities that were customary and incidental. With two separate entrances for golfers and events, it is further clarified the events center is taking precedence. Daly said the square footage is being increased from around 18,000 to 21,000 SF, which is a 16% increase in capacity. The banquet space is growing by 1,000 SF, while the remaining goes into the Golfer's Grill, lockers and restrooms. Collis said only activities necessary to the operations of the golf course should be included, and with re: to the Nordic Center, if this has been a violation in the past doesn't mean it should continue. This is a much more dramatic use. Rogers asked how the Nordic space was relevant to golf. Collis said he didn't know. Rogers asked if the clubhouse was ancillary to the golf course. Re: the Nature of the Appeal, Collis said the appellants alleged the following: 1) the proposed location of the use will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 2) the town's plan most definitely will be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity of the event center; and 3) what the Applicant is proposing is neither customary nor incidental. In sum, the PEC approved amendments to the CUP without making the proper findings, and the proposed event center fails to satisfy either of the two tests for a conditional use as an accessory building for use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Collis said if the Applicant builds it, people will come. The only thing to be considered is what is necessary for the operations of the golf course clubhouse. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 4 Moffet asked if Collis could name one successful golf course where a restaurant is separated from the grill. Donovan asked for a definition of the word necessary. Resort expectations are somewhat different in Vail and cutting back service is not an option. She had questions about the outdoor amplified sound, to which Collis responded it is already loud and complaints are lodged. Daly said the outdoor amplified sound must be completely off by 8:00 p.m. And the facility would be air conditioned; some of the most strident conditions in the town. Donovan noted the town already has regulations in place about lighting. Art Abplanalp, attorney for property owners on Sunburst, disclosed to Council that an additional two homeowners, Chapman and Knowlton, also had asked him to speak on their behalf. He presented a stack of paperwork he said should have been included in the record, but which he had assembled. Some will duplicate what Ruther has presented. He said these reflected the application as it unfolded. Rogers asked if he had attended every PEC meeting, to which he responded he had. He said no operational plan had been presented to the PEC. He had a red -lined copy of the PEC April 22, 2013, memo, but there was no inventory of the objections the golfers had voiced. He said the Vail Local Marketing Committee had been the catalyst for this proposal, and the current application is not within the original footprint. The PEC did not take any intelligible action on the CUP. Only those things customarily incidental and necessary should apply to the operations of the Golf Course. If that doesn't occur, then it should be identified for what it is, which is an events center. The events center was changed to a banquet room in January. Not one golf course he's aware of has an event center or a banquet room. Rogers said no golf course space had been sacrificed for weddings. Daly said Arrowhead, BeaverCreek, the Sonnenalp, Red Sky and Cordillera all had independent grills but the facility itself was available for weddings, meetings, banquets, and so on. Tjossem questioned how the use of banquet facilities could preclude golf, to which Abplanalp responded someone could not get from point A to point B. He said the neighborhood supports a new clubhouse but what Council is considering is a disservice. Appellant Deborah Webster said Council's mission is to provide service. The PEC approval came as a complete surprise. She said the 5 -0 -2 recusal was hardly an endorsement. The Applicant has made minimal concessions. The plan would be thrust on property owners to enforce. Council is not doing its job and should go back to the drawing board. It's the wrong project in the wrong place. The meeting proceeded to the Staff Presentation by Ruther, who first addressed a full page ad in the Vail Daily on the previous day. He said it lacked accuracy and included many misrepresentations. The golf course clubhouse would increase by 15% and golf and Nordic would occupy 100% of that increase. Capacity for the banquet space has been set at 160 people. The operations plan includes a parking plan, with 112 existing spaces increasing to a 158 requirement. Ruther noted in the April 22 memo to PEC, there was a review of the criteria (page 14 of the PEC memo and Page 5 of the Council memo dated June 4, 2013) for the CUP. The golf course clubhouse is a permitted use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, so the use is determined to be allowable. The Operations Plan was modified based on recommendations from the planning staff. Boundaries have been changed for the CUP, Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 5 at the request of the neighbors, which is the very purpose of a review process. An additional requirement will be the graphic depiction for the tent location. PEC made their findings, but in the course of discussion, an in depth conversation on the term materially injurious was had based on a request from Commissioner Michael Kurz. In response to the question of the town being treated differently than any other applicant, Ruther said the Operations Plan speaks to this. The parking plan fully complies with adopted land use regulations. Given public testimony, the application reduced the size of the CUP area. As for enforcement of the Operations Plan, this will be no different than what is expected of any property owner within the town. The town has a number of venues by which to ensure enforcement. This fourth hearing of the PEC included the conditions of the graphic depiction of the tent area, as well as the Operations Plan be drafted in a form that is legally enforceable for the zoning. Mayor Daly opened Public Comment. Stephen Connelly said the town has done a great job of banning tents. He questioned the value to VRD of $79,500 for revenue generated. He asked there be an estimate on the impact of rounds of golf, thus lost revenue, in diminishing the offset of revenue generated from the events center. He asked why build it so big. The public is not fully engaged. He suggested Council table the item tonight and put it forward to a vote. Mike Cacioppo said there have been events at the clubhouse for over thirty years. The covenants say this is to be used for golf course purposes. The clubhouse is not just for golfers; all taxpayers own the clubhouse. As an expert in the sound business, he suggested a separate banquet room would be better to insulate noise. Paul Simon said this has turned into a lot more than a clubhouse, but agreed the town needs a nicer golf clubhouse. Eric Taylor, who is a member of the men's golf club, said the town has changed the use definition to get past the covenants. The town is interested only in generating revenue. The current parking lot at 112 spaces spills over regularly. 46 new spaces is short- sighted. There is a problem with the revenue projections. Most who use the clubhouse don't want this project. Joe Staufer said there is a misconception of what we voted for. There are competitive new restaurants on the mountain. If the golfers and the neighborhood don't want it, who is the town serving. Richard Silverman said the valet parking is an issue and questioned how a banquet event business could be successful with an end time of 8:00 p.m. Dale Bugby said the nature of need of this CUP is the problem. The outside uses and tripling of patio and lawn area are not needed. This is a change in use for this property. Council has been unwilling to compromise. Kim Newbury said as a former Councilmember, she had attended many open houses and heard the public discussion, which eventually led to putting this forward on the ballot. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 6 Council never talked about allowing no events. She said Council should see how the PEC made their decision, which clearly shows this should not be overturned. PEC listened to public input and made changes. Her peer group is not opposed to this project. Jason Plante, 25 year resident, expressed concerns about safety on Sunburst Drive, which doesn't work for the community, and management of valet parking. Hermann Staufer said he had listened carefully to the comments. The convention center was voted down. The purposes on the ballot were clear. The Pulis restrictions were never lifted. It should be used as a golf course with less emphasis on weddings. He questioned why the town would compete with local businesses. Rob LeVine said he was in favor of the project, which would be in the best interest of the entire community. He used the analogy of the Sonnenalp golf course where he lives on the first hole. The Faesslers decided to expand the clubhouse, the deck and the public restaurant. In fact, this attracted more and better events, which has been an overall benefit to that golf course community. Barbara Schofield, local realtor, presented a copy of an Affidavit of Jay B. Pulis, Jr., and read the following sections: #7) Minimizing development and maximizing open space were always very important to us. We always intended the golf course land to remain as golf course land and to be used for recreational purposes; #8) To ensure the neighborhood and the valley met our vision for it, in 1966 we leased our land on which the Vail Golf Couse now sits to the Town of Vail, with specific requirements that it should only be used for a golf course or other specified recreational uses. If any clubhouse were built, it had to consist only of facilities ordinarily available in structures operated in conjunction with golf courses; #11) By the time we sold the Golf Course property to the town, the Vail Valley had become one of the nation's premier tourist destinations, and we knew how tempting it would be for the town to make a large profit by either developing the golf course land itself or selling it to other developers, contrary to the common plan we had for the golf course and its adjoining neighborhood; #12 To prevent that from happening, and to preserve the neighborhood around the Golf Course, we included with the January 11, 1984 deed to the land a restrictive covenant that states that the only use of the land was for a golf course, open space, park, or related facilities that were required to support those uses ( "Pulis Covenant "). The idea behind the Pulis Covenant was to keep the land as undeveloped as possible so it would remain a golf course with only supporting facilities for a golf course; and #13 Creating an events center with a wedding venue and indoor /outdoor banquet facilities is not consistent with our intent or the intent of the Pulis Covenant. Our intent was a golf course, simple required support facilities, and surrounding residences, and not commercial operations. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked Council to reverse the decision of the PEC based on the incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as it would do irreparable harm. Dennis Koller, 14 year local, said the clubhouse represents a lot of tradition and reflects the history of Vail. It is not for weddings. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 7 There being no further comment from the public, Mayor Daly closed public comment. Ruther said a recurring theme is parking, which was addressed by the PEC and Operations Plan. Staff recommends Council uphold the decision of the PEC and noted the Finding of Facts in both the PEC and staff memo for this meeting. Mayor Daly called for the Response by Appellants. Toller stated the PEC had found the project to be materially injurious and detrimental to public safety. Only those things customary and incidental to a golf course should be included. This should be re- designed to be in a quiet neighborhood. The events center competes against the golf course itself. He said the PEC did not adopt the conditions in their findings. Webster received an e -mail on July 12, 2012, from Warren Publis, who called the event center a complete sham. The original conditions had already been agreed upon. Abplanalp said staff should be commended on their parking efforts, but unfortunately, these don't deal with the golfer. The events center trumps the golfer. Only what's necessary should be included. The Operations Plan will not work over the next 50 years. The correct finding is to reverse the PEC. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mire asked Council to accept all documents as presented as part of the public record. Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to accept all documents as presented, along with all exhibits. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Daly opened the Council deliberation. Tjossem said she struggled with what the Council can do or should do. The conditions have become incredibly restrictive. An average wedding with 150 people now costs between $25,000 to $50,000. Is this facility still marketable at this price and with these restrictions. Can it be financially viable, too. She stated she believes PEC made the right decision. Rogers said this started with the ballot initiative and that language was to provide for expansion and improvement of the golf course clubhouse and the Nordic Center and for a multi -use commercial space. In her role in a quasi - judicial capacity, she does not believe the PEC approved any new uses that were not already going on. PEC made the appropriate findings and there is no error in their process. Moffet said ditto to Rogers comments. The ballot received an 85% approval. There is compelling evidence to support overturning the PEC decision. Kurz agreed with Rogers and Moffet. Although he's the oldest person sitting at that table, he continues to think about the future of Vail and moving Vail forward. He will vote to uphold the PEC decision. Foley stated Council should not do this project with all this opposition. He agreed with Tjossem's comparison of can and should. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 8 Donovan said this had been an interesting discussion and thanked the public for their thoughtful comments. Tjossem's concerns made sense. Given this is a quasi - judicial issue, she said she does not believe the PEC recommendations or decision were flawed in their process. Daly said the scope broadened as it progressed, but in four PEC meetings, modifications were made in response to concerns. Parking has enforceability, which would lie squarely on the shoulders of the VRD. Guests and residents will be proud of this facility. PEC's identification of issues and efforts to resolve them has provided greater protection for this neighborhood than for any other in the town. He stated tents are outside the CUP, but that he is aware over the years promotional tents have been set up at various locations throughout the golf course. The PEC's job is to look at what is best for our community. It's been an open, comprehensive process, although also emotional, but it will make us a better community. PEC did not err in their review. Moffet moved, with a second from Kurz, to uphold the PEC decision, including the findings incorporated in the June 4, 2013, memo to Council. All findings are to be incorporated by reference, having previously been read in full into the record by Ruther. Tjossem noted even though she has reservations about the future, she will vote to uphold the PEC decision. A vote was taken and the motion passed. 6 -1 (Foley opposed). The sixth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Moffet moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m., with a second from Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: Andrew P. Daly, Mayor Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 9 Vail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 4:00 P.M. by Mayor Andy Daly. Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor Ludwig Kurz Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley Greg Moffet Margaret Rogers Susie Tjossem Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Jonathan Levine approached about scheduling a meeting on the past winter's approach to licensing all commercial transit vehicles and was told it would be held at some time in the future. Jim Lamont stated some traffic concerns with the water district's construction project on Potato Patch Drive. A meeting with the contractor, the district and the town is scheduled for June 24. The second item on the agenda was Consent Agenda. 1) Holy Cross Energy Utility Easement to power to the ATT tower sites located at Public Works: Council had no questions about the first item. 2) MOU State Digital Trunked Radio System. Daly said he assumed this was done through Dispatch, so the costs would be shared with all user groups. Dwight Henninger, Police Chief, said there would be no costs to the town as long as the agreement was signed for a 5 year commitment. Kurz moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Donovan. A vote was taken and motion passed unanimously, 6 -0. The third item on the agenda was Town Manager Report. Stan Zemler, Town Manager, asked the Community Development Director, George Ruther, to present information about stream tract signs that are currently being placed along the corridor to show the delineation of the town's stream tract. In a memo presented to Council, Ruther outlined the public outreach underway to publicize this public initiative. In an attempt to clarify the boundaries, 60 signs have been strategically placed. As this work was being conducted, another 20 properties were found to be in violation of encroachment onto public right -of -way. In this effort, Ruther said town staff had erred on the public's side of the encroachment, in an attempt not to be punitive in any manner. Signs are informational and have been Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 1 strategically set. Multiple letters have been sent to adjacents about protection of this riparian corridor and the need to stop detrimental practices. Henninger also indicated that as the community gears up for another wildland fire summer, key staff had attended a FEMA organized table top exercise for several days the week prior. The fourth item on the agenda was dismount zones Vail Village. Chief Henninger introduced the topic, stating this had been added to the evening public hearing in order to allow public discussion. He said it was possible to put a dismount policy together, just as the town has done for parking, skate boards and other uses of the public right -of -way. Rogers said Council had received a fair amount of a -mails on the topic, with the vast majority in opposition to them. Especially in a pedestrian community where the town is encouraging walking and biking, this does not make sense. It is the wrong solution for a very narrow problem. Bike shops are making a living off renting bikes so it's a part of our economy. Henninger said people may be more afraid of the down mountain bikes that can look fearsome, are noisy and sometimes are traveling too fast as they come off the mountain. Daly said the town should avoid mandatory dismount zones. Instead signs during peak times could be a better remedy and reminder. Henninger encouraged Council to allow the Event Review Committee (ERC) the ability to make a discretionary call on when these signs might be posted. Kurz agreed with both Rogers and Daly's comments. Tjossem said to use caution with a proliferation of signs, which just seem to add clutter. Moffet said there's really a greater issue on Bridge Street but there's just no way to regulate it out. Staff should be asked to suggest to people that they slow down and to exercise common sense. Donovan said to do nothing. Daly summed up the discussion by saying Council seemed to agree on posting no signs, while urging the police to talk to unsafe riders. Under public discussion, Jonathan Levine observed older people seemed to be more out of control. Self regulation works well. Tom Neyens thanked the Council saying biking was a big part of what we do. He suggested Council might consider a "slow zone" on town maps and to enforce the rules that are currently in place. A little more enforcement would be good. Dawes Wilson, who has been commuting through the Village for over 30 years, said many bikers use a bell. He suggested people are more scared of those carrying skis. He said the Village was also a safe area for kids to ride. Erik Brofos agreed with all of the public comment and said permanent dismount zones were not the solution. Daly concluded by saying no posting of signs would occur; however, if someone is not riding respectfully, Police contact is appropriate and will occur. The fifth item on the agenda was RAMP & Lionshead Landscaping Medians Update and available TIF funding. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel told Council this presentation would detail funding matches for projects with Colorado Department of Revenue (CDOT) that would not preclude future projects. He started with the first project, Simba Run, that would provide a third option for crossing the interstate. This project has been discussed since the early 1990's and is referenced in numerous Vail master plans and transportation related Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 2 documents, including the 1 -70 PEIS. It would provide connectivity between the North and South Frontage Roads for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit operations. The total cost submitted for RAMP funding is $20.6M. In order to provide the best chance of success in the selection process, the town has submitted a match of $6.0 M or 29% to be funded by Vail Reinvestment Authority (VRA) and Tax Increment Funding (TIF) dollars. Kassmel stated that currently a feasibility study is underway, a public meeting will be held in August, as well as further meetings with Council. This project has been studied extensively. Donovan asked if the town really needs this. She said it had originally started out as just a pedestrian and bike path need, but now has been expanded to include an express bus option. Kassmel replied that currently the red and green feeder lines provide service for outlying areas. This could provide a more direct connection from West Vail and Timber Ridge to Ever Vail. Daly asked how this would further address the degradation of the town's roundabouts. Kassmel said studies show this could eliminate up to 300 vehicle trips at Main Vail and 250 at West Vail. Donovan said this is a huge construction project, which would impact the entire community. The level of impact makes it undoable. Moffet asked if this connection would extend the useful life of the roundabouts, to which Kassmel said this will be impacted by the pace of development. It would put the town ahead of the game. Rogers said she would be willing to support the project, but only if the CDOT match falls into place, with $14M coming from the state and $6M from the town. Kassmel said this is a part of CDOT's long term plan to provide relief to congestion in the town. Donovan stated Council had to give a yay or nay at this meeting but $6M could not be justified. It's a huge number. Kurz said he was in favor, as was Tjossem, citing the benefit of connectivity between neighborhoods. Moffet agreed. A vote was taken and it passed 5 -1, Donovan opposed. The next item up for consideration was the Frontage Road Improvements. The submitted total project is $23.3.M, of which, $4.6M has already been constructed by the town in the form of widened bike lanes and shoulders over the past few years, and $5.OM is currently in the town's budget from TIF and RETT for additional improvements over the next couple of years, thus totaling an available town match of $9.6M or 46 %. The town's improvements reflect current CDOT standards for structural overlay. If the town should ever take over the Frontage Roads, needed capital expenditures would already have been made. Donovan said she thought Council had been pretty clear they did not want to keep adding asphalt. She does not support turn lanes, and the community doesn't want them either. Rogers said as long as medians were included, she was in favor of it. Kassmel stated the project from the Lionshead Parking Structure to the Ritz would have medians. Council will determine others. Also, if the town takes the Frontage Roads, Council would determine turn lanes. Tjossem said she agreed with Donovan on this project, given it would add more urbanization. Kurz disagreed, saying traffic is not going to lessen and these guidelines are in the town's best interest. Where we can do it, we should. Rogers said if the town uses CDOT's money, the town can pay for medians. It's worth the investment. Moffet said they Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 3 were already defacto lanes, they were already there. It is a moot point. A vote was taken and it passed 4 -2, Donovan and Tjossem opposed. The East Vail Water Quality project was next, with Kassmel stating this was already identified in the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan and was an ideal project to partner with CDOT. As a result of the Gore Creek listing on the 303D list, this project will catch traction sand and will be a detention area for snow. The total price for the project is $1.14M, with the town submitting a match of $440 thousand or a 39% match to be funded by the existing Water Quality Improvement Budget. A vote was taken and it passed unanimously, 6 -0. The final project was the Lionshead Landscape Medians to enhance the South Frontage Road from the Lionshead Parking Structure entry west to Vail Spa. This project is estimated at $1 M, which could be paid by the VRA with TI dollars if the RAMP funding is not approved. Because this project doubles the amount of landscape medians in the town, increased maintenance and operation costs for irrigation, landscaping and snow removal would need to be considered in future budgets. Kassmel said a final CDOT decision would be made in September of this year. He said planning would cost around $100K and could come from savings from Lionshead projects. Kassmel said beyond 2017 revenue continues to be collected through 2030, with projected total collections adding another $38M which can be spent on other Lionshead TIF district capital projects. A vote was taken that passed unanimously, 6 -0. The sixth item on the agenda Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2013 An Emergency Ordinance Adopting a Temporary Moratorium of the Processing and Approval of all Business and Land Use Application for Private Ski Club Uses within the Town. Community Development Director George Ruther reminded Council of the horizontal zoning structure that allows uses according to stories of buildings. In this case, it had been determined that the proposed Private Ski Club uses were similar to a cocktail lounge or bar and eating establishments. His department has received numerous inquiries about spaces in both Vail Village and Lionshead. Staff is recommending a moratorium for up to 6 months so staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Council have adequate time to review how these uses would impact the town's development objectives. The original intent was to allow ski storage in less desirable retail spaces. There is no doubt this is a highly desirable use and guest service amenity, but it should also be beneficial to development objectives. Once the impacts are identified, the ordinance can be repealed. Donovan said this would result in a pretty awkward timeframe, December. Town Attorney Matt Mire said the standard is 6 months for a moratorium. Ruther said if a shorter time was approved, they may have to extend it anyway to buy some more time. Under Public Comment, Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association, said vehicular traffic would need to be considered once a similar use is established. He said to be careful with the process, and perhaps this should be looked at through the neighborhood's consideration of whether this is an improvement. As an example, he said Founders Plaza drop off has created a unique traffic situation for both drop off and pick up. It might allow for a greater variety of use on the second floor. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 4 Dominic Mauriello, Planning Consultant for the applicant, said it sounded as if a decision had already been made and this needed public debate. It also suggests this is a negative use. He said a 6 month moratorium really meant a year- and -a -half delay. Lance Thompson with Four Seasons said to be careful with this slippery slope because it is so very important to Four Seasons operations and guest services. It is fortunate that it works so well for their operation and that we should not get trapped in this conversation. Tom Neyens said he's has run a ski storage operation successfully from a basement space for 23 years. There is plenty of space available in both villages. It's the easiest way for the landlord to make money, but if approved, the town will continue to lose good retail space and sales tax. Tjossem questioned whether the review process would really take 6 months and this was a discussion about service versus retail. Ruther said it might not take 6 months, but if the preponderance of space is going to ski storage, there's not much of an argument to support this is a use by right for a cocktail lounge and bar. It is a valued amenity to store skis in a convenient location. Moffet said this policy is explicitly displacing established development objectives and he's not comfortable with allowing more. Originally, there were substantial "club" requirements. Kurz agreed with Moffet, stating this was necessary at this time and could potentially change the character of the village. Daly suggested Council explore what's been successful and what has not. Ruther clarified any modifications would not affect existing "clubs," although review of the interiors and use allocations would most likely occur. Rogers said this would be a difficult thing to quantify, since members of these "clubs" are most definitely spending money in the Village. Moffet moved to approve, including Rogers removal suggestion in the second to last "whereas" clause the wording "the operation of, and," with a second from Kurz. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0. The seventh an appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Design Review Board's approval, with conditions, of a design review application for minor exterior alterations to expand storefront windows at 158 Gore Creek Drive Unit 132 /1-ots A, B, and C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Ruther introduced the item stating the Vail Town Council appealed (called up) the approval of DRB130090 by the Design Review board. The application had been to expand the storefront windows of the Gore Creek Gallery and Books store. Ruther said the question to be answered was if the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations were properly applied in the decision to allow exterior alterations to the storefront at 158 Gore Creek Drive Unit 132. He said it had not been just dumb luck when the knee wall requirement was put in place to preclude any ground floor to ceiling windows, in that it helped keep the character of the Village in tact. Abandoning the tradition of knee walls (18 to 24 inch base walls) will foster a new, intractable direction for the character of the Vail Village and a departure from the governing documents. This review should underscore the aim to preserve the Village's character and prevent its degradation. Staff is recommending the Council approve, approve with modifications or oppose the DRB's ruling. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 5 Moffet suggested there could be no solution at this meeting and the wisest course would be to approve with modifications so the staff and applicant could work together to come up with a compromise. Tjossem asked if they went that direction, how could they send this message to the DRB. Her concern was whether approval with modifications sent a strong enough message to the DRB. Dominic Mauriello, Planning Consultant for the applicant, said the actual town guidelines do require interpretation. The applicant is adding just 15 inches of additional glass, and the guidelines were originally intended for the buildings themselves, not the storefronts. This particular location is somewhat set back from the pedestrian flow and variety helps traffic. A lot of what's included in the plans and guidelines speaks to exceptions. Daly noted on their site visit earlier in the day he had seen some uniformity among the storefronts. Mauriello said the guidelines were written in 1980 and not every policy would work for every store front. He asked Council to uphold the DRB decision because this application was appropriate and transparent for a smaller storefront. Donovan asked for the total height of the window, to which Ruther said 7 feet, 7 inches. He said the guidelines gave a notion of variety, color, trim and merchandizing. If Council reflected on Tom Braun's previous presentation on preservation, he spoke to identifying distinctions in the guidelines that create that character. Mauriello said the policy may need to change. Ruther asked what didn't work. Ruther said the floor to ceiling doors in Mountain Standard and other restaurants as Mauriello had named were in place to provide record doors that allow both an indoor and outdoor experience. He also noted Solaris is outside the guideline area, although many of Mauriello's examples were at that location. Moffet noted the site visit had been quite instructive. While it may be quaint, it "aint" broken. He moved to approve the application with modifications and the condition the double doors should stay. Donovan seconded with a further clarification this motion allows the applicant and staff to work out a suitable solution. A voted was taken and passed unanimously, 6 -0. The eighth item on the agenda was an update regarding recent legislation concerning the regulation of the retail sale of recreational marijuana, which is now referred to as "adult use marijuana." House Bill 13 -1317 ( "HB 1317 ") set forth the licensing structure, House Bill 13- 1318 ( "HB 1318 ") addresses taxation and Senate Bill 13 -283 ( "SB 283 ") addresses miscellaneous provisions in the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning marijuana use. Mire introduced the item as the regulation of retail sale of recreational marijuana, which is now referred to as "adult use marijuana." By October 1, 2013, all local jurisdictions are required to either prohibit retail marijuana sales or adopt an ordinance identifying the entity with the town that will be responsible for processing applications. He also noted if the Department of Revenue (DOR) fails to adopt regulations by July 1, 2013, or fails to process and issue licenses as dictated in HB 1317, applicants are entitled to apply directly to the town for licensure unless the town has adopted an ordinance prohibiting the retail sale of marijuana. The town needs to decide if it wishes to get into this business. Sales tax would apply and they could also add an excise tax. The current Council imposed moratorium ends August 6 , Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 6 2013, so Council needs to have something in place. If Council bans marijuana now, it can end at any time. Another possibility is it could be kicked back to the electorate for a vote. Rogers asked if the medical marijuana operation had to be located within the town. Mire said yes. Brian Rogers, who runs an operation in Breckenridge, stated he had an opinion from his attorney that an outside operation could apply within the Town of Vail, but given the Council had not yet weighed in and vetted the issue, he would defer his comments. Mire said he would re -check his information. Jim Lamont said because of the complexity of this issue, Council should allow the public to vote. He believes on a grass roots level, people are really looking at this differently. He also suggested getting input from our Mexican and international guests. Daly asked what the Vail Homeowner's Association stand was. He asked if Lamont was suggesting what Council decides could define national policy. Lamont said there were many powerful people here and this could have a larger ripple effect. Rogers said marijuana should be legally regulated and taxed. It was overwhelmingly approved by Vail voters and countywide. Why fight it. Regulations and taxation were the next issues at which Council should be looking. She would be opposed to any motion contrary to what the people of Vail directed. Moffet said he was inclined to agree with Rogers, since otherwise we will be encouraging people to drive outside of town. He is inclined without committing. Kurz is conflicted because he saw a lot of 18 to 24 year olds voting on this issue. He does not agree it was an overwhelming vote. Donovan said she was a big, fat "maybe." More questions have been raised by the memo. The weight of enforcement is an issue, as well as the perception Colorado has become the pot head state. She would like to wait for the state to enact guidelines. She's in favor of the moratorium because we'll be regulating something that's very, very, gray. Vail has an international reputation and is this what we want to have as a part of our brand. There were many varied motivations for 64. She would like to revisit it in a year or a year- and -a -half. We don't want to be a test community. Daly wanted to delay making a decision since there's still no ruling from the feds. The town has long- standing relationships with our international guests. He suggested extending the moratorium until January 1, 2014. A vote was taken and it was approved by 4 -2 (Rogers and Moffet opposed). Rogers said she was OK with extending the moratorium to this date and would like to see it added to the July 2 agenda. Mire said the town has already cleaned up its code to coincide with the state. The ninth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, with conditions, of a development review application for the review of a variance from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17 Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Exterior Alterations and Modification, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Moffet moved to table the item at the applicant's Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 7 request to the July 2 meeting, with a second from Donovan. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0. Ruther reminded Council of a joint meeting this Friday, June 21, hosted by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the town to specifically discuss the helicopter placement. It is scheduled from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. at The Grand View and light refreshments will be served. The tenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 6 -0. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Andrew P. Daly, Mayor Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2013 7/2/2013 Page 8 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager Report: Transportation ordinance update - Dwight Henninger PRESENTER(S): Stan Zemler 7/2/2013 rowH Of vn' �ii> rowH Of vn' �ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Water Supply Update. PRESENTER(S): Diane Johnson, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and ask questions. ATTACHMENTS: 2013 Water Supply Outlook PowerPoint 7/2/2013 Water Supply Outlook July 2, 2013 —Diane John�� almity Lmife r F�� 'a'-0.0-wre wo EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT JUNE 255 2013 Eagle County is D1 (moderate) Reduced from D2 on April 23. Drought Intensity Scale: DO - D4 7/2/2013 June 25, 2013 None C-0-C-4 Dl-C-4 D2-D4 D2-D4 I-A-BMIMP.. C.CO 'I '10.1-, C 7 9.4-"" 17 1 54 1 71 7/2/2013 July 3, 2012 None DO-C4 DI-C4 D2-D4 I-A-BMIMP.. o._-o 100.00 100.00 101D.00 35.0 32D 2E0 X22) 2 $ t 2�E3 � ,., \ S / / \ 0 2 % -t 11 ± e f e e n m w s # ., / ^ \ / ® $ S / / O ate 2012-13 Snow Water E q Uiy * ,nt 30.0 25.D 20.0 15.D 0 [A £]>D 5.0 0.o if I I Ln m C-.A g C-i / f co Date 2012-13 Snow Water Equiy,*,nt 6, jo . Ir 1440 1240 1444 �} 67s7 i RJ'F 400 200 �Historieal average Since Piceptivn (20O -2012) #4 0 iii iiin 1)ate Streamflow: 278 CFS (6 /2C'2lp, daily mean) = 94% of normal r >6 L 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Soo 0 on (2000-2012) S ryis 1� N Strearnflow: 603 CFS (6/2§t2lp,daily mean) = 65% of normal FIRE PROTECTION 7/2/2013 ESSENTIAL DOMESTIC USES 0 STREAMFLOWS, AQUATIC HEALTH, TOURISM, RECREATION 7/2/2013 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS r Tp-i Li h 7/2/2013 y. Monday — N 0 0 U TDOOR WATE R US E Wodnosday 7/2/2013 H, CONTACT INFO Customer Service: customerservice @ erwsd.org 970 - 477 -5451 Communications & Public Affairs: Diane Johnson djohnson @erwsd.org 970 - 477 -5457 Web: erwsd.org Twitter: @VailCOwater 7/2/2013 rowH Of vn' �ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2013, An Ordinance Extending the Temporary Ban on Marijuana Establishments in the Town, Pursuant to the Newly Enacted Section 16 of Article XVIII of Colorado Constitution (Amendment 64). PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series 2013, upon first reading. BACKGROUND: Colorado voters recently passed Amendment 64, which amended Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution by the addition of a new section regarding the personal use and regulation of marijuana. Pursuant to Article XVIII, § 16(5)(f) of the Colorado Constitution, the Town may "prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance ".The Town Council (the "Council ") requested that Town staff study the effects of such marijuana establishments, considering the Town's existing land use regulations and master plan, and thereafter provide information to the Council as to whether such uses should be permitted at any location in the Town. Though the Colorado Legislature has adopted a statutory framework to implement Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has not yet adopted regulations pursuant to the recently adopted statutes. The Council had adopted a temporary ban until August 6, 2013. Town staff needs additional time to gather information, to review the state statutes and forthcoming regulations, and to study the impacts of marijuana establishments and the zone districts in which they should be permitted, if at all. During such time, the Council wishes to extend the temporary ban on the location or operation of marijuana establishments in the Town until January 21, 2014. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, approve with modifications or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series 2013, upon first reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 9 Series of 2013 7/2/2013 ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY BAN ON MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE TOWN, PURSUANT TO THE NEWLY ENACTED SECTION 16 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT 64) WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado (the "Town "), is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Vail Town Charter; WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council ") have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, Colorado voters recently passed Amendment 64, which amended Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution by the addition of a new section regarding the personal use and regulation of marijuana; WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XVIII, § 16(5)(f) of the Colorado Constitution, the Town may "prohibit the operation of marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, marijuana testing facilities, or retail marijuana stores through the enactment of an ordinance "; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council that Town staff study the effects of such marijuana establishments, considering the Town's existing land use regulations and master plan, and thereafter provide information to the Council as to whether such uses should be permitted at any location in the Town; WHEREAS, though the Colorado Legislature has adopted a statutory framework to implement Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has not yet adopted regulations pursuant to the recently adopted statutes; WHEREAS, previously, the Town Council had adopted a temporary ban until August 6, 2013; WHEREAS, Town staff needs additional time to gather information, to review the state statutes and forthcoming regulations, and to study the impacts of marijuana establishments and the zone districts in which they should be permitted, if at all; and WHEREAS, during such time, the Council finds and determines that it is the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare for the Town to extend the temporary ban on the location or operation of marijuana establishments in the Town until January 21, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 9, 2013 7/2/2013 Section 1. It is unlawful for any person to operate, cause to be operated, or permit to be operated in the Town a marijuana establishment, and marijuana establishments are hereby prohibited at any location in the Town. Section 2. For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings: a. "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin, including marijuana concentrate, but excluding industrial hemp, fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. b. "Marijuana establishment" means and includes a marijuana cultivation facility, a marijuana testing facility, a marijuana product manufacturing facility, a retail marijuana store and a marijuana club. C. "Marijuana cultivation facility" means a facility licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana and sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, to marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. d. "Marijuana testing facility" means a facility licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana. e. "Marijuana product manufacturing facility" means a facility licensed to purchase marijuana; manufacture, prepare and package marijuana products; and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and to retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. f. "Retail marijuana store" means a facility licensed to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities or marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities, or to sell marijuana or marijuana products to consumers. g. "Marijuana club" means a place not used for residential purposes where individuals gather to consume or grow marijuana, regardless of whether such place calls itself private or public or charges an admission or membership fee. Section 3. This ordinance is intended to be temporary in nature, and as such, this ordinance shall be in effect from its effective date until January 21, 2014 unless earlier repealed. Ordinance No. 9, 2013 7/2/2013 Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of July, 2013 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of July, 2013, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of )2013. Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 9, 2013 7/2/2013 Tammy Nagel 5 From: Rondeau's <nanpaul @vail.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:35 AM To: Council Dist List Subject: Paul Rondeau's Letter re Recreational Marijuana printed in 7/1/13 Vail Daily Attachments: 64.rtf, ATT00001.txt FOLKS ......... The recreational marijuana "hot potato" is something that must be dealt with in a way quite different from your usual deliberations. I suggest the following: FORGET THE TOWN VOTES: Regardless of what the majority voted for or the high turnout of young voters, you have to consider our guests -- winter & summer, day & destination, American & foreign. VAIL RESORTS & TOV ARE JOINED AT THE HIP ON THIS ONE: From the reporter's summary in the Daily, the tie in with VR was not even aired. The two organizations need to jointly get perspective -- probably including a series of surveys- - capturing both statistical summaries and anecdotal -laced data. YOU NEED HELP ON THIS ONE: With the exception of Ms. Donovan, you are all older (sorry) and likely not even knowing the terminology of the new cannabis industry, much less understanding the business models. You need a working focus group to help getting your arms around this new issue - -to include a broad spectrum of ages, backgrounds and organizational representations. The attached document was submitted to the Daily to help get the public informed and involved - -as you cannot come up with solutions in a vacuum. Note the attached document has one sentence changed in the BUILDING WALLS item from what was printed in the paper. Not that it makes any difference, I did NOT vote for Amendment 64, hoping Washington State would be successful and Colorado not passing - -hence giving us a year or two before the inevitable would come about in Colorado and many other states in a domino effect. The only "non- process" suggestion I have is for the town to "dip its toes" into the cannabis issue by allowing medical marijuana retail outlets. Regards ............... Paul Rondeau ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA The author of this piece was probably in the minority of those that read the full text of Amendment 64, the pro /con statements and considered long term issues before voting. The author has never consumed marijuana and is not an investor in the new industry. The thoughts are: BIG PICTURE: Nobody in the panel of former and current mayors at Vail's State of the Town meeting mentioned impacts of recreational marijuana when describing Vail's future. This given that the governor has said we are into unchartered territory that will bring great change. GET WITH THE PROGRAM: The operative word for marijuana is really cannabis and the substance giving the high is THC. AREAS OF FOCUS: The amendment talked about retail sales, production (growing) and assembly /testing /distribution. To this list you must add smoking clubs & places for consumption. Hotels are just starting to think about the impacts of smoking the product in rooms & halls. ITS IN THE BROWNIES: Most think of smoking, but consider the product is also sold in foodstuffs. TRANSITION: The proponents of the amendment made the analogy that going down to your local marijuana shop will be like going down to your local liquor shop. Perhaps.... but did they really understood the growing pains after Prohibition was repealed in 1933? BIG BUCKS: If cannabis - related commercial space (including retail) is up for grabs to the highest bidder, there is so much money involved, they will outbid just about anybody else. For perspective, consider a group of investors trying to purchase a large metal building in Westcliffe (Custer county) for growing cannabis. The sticking point for this newish building is not price, but whether the town will allow it. The belief is cannabis grown at higher altitudes (Westcliffe is 7900 ft) has a higher THC content. Further, the predictions are a major inequality between a limited legal supply and a great demand. LOCATION: If Vail is to allow retail recreation marijuana, where to zone it? If its just like a liquor store, is it by default West Vail? But if the council wants to ensure vibrancy and no empty storefronts, why not allow the new retailers to lease higher price /sq.ft. locations in town? BUILDING WALLS: Not allowing retail cannabis in Vail will not dampen consumption. For destination tourists who normally arrive by van, it certainly will increase demand for taxi service & rental cars to go to down valley retail outlets. LEMONS INTO LEMONADE: Instead of fearing the cannabis revolution, perhaps Vail should embrace it with panache? We could start by allowing only medical marijuana as part of the health & wellness theme! SOMEONE HAS TO BE 1ST: So its Colorado and Washington state. And Vail is noted for its pioneering spirit ............ perhaps: "Nothing like it on earth and doubly high in the Colorado Rockies." Paul Rondeau, a longtime Vail resident Tammy Nagel From: Pam Brandmeyer Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:39 PM To: Matt Mire; George Ruther; Tammy Nagel; Mary Ann Best Subject: FW: Cannabis in Vail - Moratorium Collective Council e-mail... From: Brian M Rogers [mailto:brianmrog @yahooxom] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:51 AM To: Council Dist List Subject: Cannabis in Vail - Moratorium All, My name is Brian Rogers I currently own and operate the Breckenridge Cannabis Club and I am the one who spoke about Cannabis in Vail at the last council meeting. As I mentioned at that meeting it was possible that the town attorney Matt Mire had been misinformed about Vail's options concerning its' approach to Amendment 64. As it turns out Vail can have Cannabis retail stores as early as January 1, 2014. I emailed Matt to this effect late last week and gave him the contact info to the state regulator with whom I've been in contact. I assume Matt will update you all about this either by email or at the work shop tomorrow. I am asking that the council reconsider their tentative plan to extend a moratorium and instead hammer out regulations and a plan to tax cannabis at the local level. I spoke with Dwight the Police Chief after the last council meeting and he said the major problems he has with Cannabis are already happening, that people consume it publicly and inappropriately. I am concerned that tourists from all over the World will come to visit Vail this coming winter, many assuming they will be able to buy their cannabis in Vail. When they discover there are no stores they will most likely get their product from an illegal source and then have no education about where it is safe and legal to consume or how much they should use. Locals should already know better but tourists have an excuse, "you can smoke a cigarette in public, why am I getting a ticket for smoking a joint in public ". This and many other issues will be nipped in the bud at the Point of Sale when the customer is handed literature on safe and legal consumption and a friendly sales associate is there to answer any of their questions. Someone is definitely selling Cannabis in Vail right now, but they are not selling Cannabis that was grown with any appropriate regulation. They are lacking safeguards such as approved sanitary conditions, approved nutrients and chemicals, zero testing for safety and potency and they are collecting zero tax dollars. These current 'drug dealers' do not care about Vail's image or their products' impact on the community. The potential owners of the Vail Cannabis Club do care, just as we do in Breckenridge. With a store Vail can collect the taxes needed to increase enforcement of public consumption laws and at the Point of Sale a sales associate will remind customers about their social responsibility to consume safely, responsibly, and legally. Effectively Vail already has all of the negative effects of Cannabis use among its' population but none of the safeguards or taxes to help correct these issues. Cannabis Stores will only help Vail to handle this situation without costing non cannabis users a dime. The Breckenridge Cannabis Club, the only downtown store in Breckenridge, has been handling tourists questions and hearing their off the wall reasoning for all things cannabis related for over 3.5 years! We are prepared to handle Vails tourists as well. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Also, if you would like industry input at either the workshop or the council meeting I will make myself available. Thank you for your time on this matter. Brian 410- 459 -6001 rowH Of vn' �ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvements PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review concept options for the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvements and direct staff to move through the entitlement process with a preferred concept. BACKGROUND: The Lionshead Parking Structure is in need of entry improvements to improve operational efficiency, safety and aesthetics. Staff has provided Coucil with information on parking equipment and access improvements at previous Council worksessions. Based on previous discussions staff has developed two conceptual options with add options to be presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to move forward through the entitlement process with a preferred concept. ATTACHMENTS: Council Memorandum Cost Estimate Presentation 7/2/2013 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Town Council From: Public Works Date: 7 -2 -13 Subject: Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvements Concept Plan I. SUMMARY & PURPOSE The purpose of Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvement project is to improve the operational efficiency, safety, guest experience and aesthetics of the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry. As identified in the previous Council discussions the Lionshead Parking Structure has three primary operational issues; 1. Transaction Rates & Equipment: With peak exit volumes of 375 -450 vehicles per hour, efficiency is critical at the exit booths. 2. Frontage Road Traffic Flow: At peak exiting and entering periods the Frontage Roads are also at their peak, making entering and exiting difficult and slow, backing up into the exit lanes and parking structure. 3. Circuitous Route to Exit and Layout: Multiple levels of parking exiting from the bottom up via a spiraling exit ramp that has up to 5 merge points before one gets to the exit lanes. At the two previous Council worksessions staff presented a detailed analysis of the Transaction Rates & Equipment (412113) and the Frontage Road Traffic Flow (4116113). Based on these two worksessions it was concluded that the current equipment methodology with layout modifications along with two Pay -On -Foot stations is the appropriate equipment methodology; and that Council did not desire to make any Frontage Road improvements at this time. The purpose of today's worksession is to discuss concept plans which include the outcomes of the previous worksessions and address the exit routing. 7/2/2013 II. CONCEPT LAYOUTS Based on previous input the design team and staff have narrowed down the appropriate concept plans to two options. Each improve the operational efficiency, safety, guest experience and aesthetics of the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry. Option 1 - • Separate and offset entry and exit lanes to eliminate confusion and increase vehicular queue capacity. • Widen entry /exit plaza to accommodate more vehicles and to add one additional lane to provide 3 entry and 3 exit lanes. Still maintaining the ability to convert one lane to a reversible lane for future needs as necessary. • Widen top exiting parking structure ramp to accommodate 2 lanes of exiting vehicles. • Demo existing 4 attendant booths and replace with 2 new attendant booths and 1 supervisors booth. Remaining lanes will have only automated equipment. • Add an architectural feature roof above the main entry/exit point to provide guest entry experience and recognition, protect booths and equipment, and provide ability to install easily recognizable overhead signage. It is intended for the roof structure to complement the existing LH Transit and Welcome Centers buildings. • Provide new striping and signage at entry intersection to better designate lanes and identify entry from the Frontage Road. No other Frontage Improvements will be done at this time, so that necessary turn lanes are not triggered by CDOT. • Add landscape to breakup the hardscape and buffer the visual of the charter bus lot. Still providing access to the charter bus lot. • Snowmelt the entry/exit transaction areas at a minimum to provide a better guest experience, eliminate the need to plow within confined entry/exit lanes, eliminate vehicles sliding into booths and /or equipment, eliminate snow and ice build -up on gate loops so they function properly at all times. • Possible Add Option: Provide heated or non heated pavers for the entire entry/exit plaza. • Option 1 is the recommended Option. Option 2 - • Same improvements as Option 1 with the following addition; • Eliminate the top exiting parking structure ramp and add a new exit thru and over the existing unused second level access. This lessens the serpentine exiting movement on the top deck providing a smoother exit pattern. It also separates the entry and exits further with a large landscape buffer, and modifies a few parking spaces. • Even though Option 2 improves the exiting traffic flow by removing some of the serpentine traffic pattern, it is not recommended due to the impacts the Charter Bus lot. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 2 IV. Lower Level Add Option - An add option is also recommended with either of the above options. This add option provides a lower level "express exit" for pass holders, and reconfigures the existing skier drop off to function more safely and more efficiently by creating a one way skier drop off loop. This option relieves some congestion from the top deck exit /entry without overloading East Lionshead Circle or creating the need for additional attendants at the lowest level. It also incentivizes the use of passes and provides pass holders with a quicker and more seamless experience. BUDGET & CONCEPT COSTS A more detailed conceptual cost estimate is attached for the recommended Option 1, along with the Add Options. Option 1 (Base): $1.8 million ($1.1 million w/o Entry Roof Element) w/ Lower Level Add Option: $2.1 million ($1.4 million w/o Entry Roof Element) w/ Pavers $2.2 million w/ Heated Pavers $2.4 million The current total budget for this project is $1.2 Million. If Council would like to move forward with the recommended option the budget will need to be supplemented from TIF. The current TIF projections show a fund balance in 2017 of approximately $1.3 million, with an unallocated fund balance of $39 Million thru 2030. This balance assumes all currently budgeted projects move forward including the potential RAMP fund match for Simba Run, and the construction dollars for the Lionshead medians discussed at the last Council session. Allocating an additional $1.2 million of TIF fund balance to this project would allow for Option 1 and all add options to be constructed. If Council chooses to make entry improvements and stay within the original budget of $1.2 million, the base Option 1 project could move forward without the entry roof structure. This would bring the total estimated base project cost down to $1.1 million. V. Next Steps The next step for the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry Improvement Project is to have Council direct staff and the design team to move forward thru the entitlement process (PEC /DRB) with a preferred concept plan. Assuming no major design changes occur thru the entitlement process staff will then update Council once entitlement approval is gained. Once approved the Final Design and Construction Documents Phase will begin with the intent of starting construction in the Spring of 2014. Lionshead Entry Improvement Project Schedule Concept Design: April -June 2013 Design Development and Entitlements: July- September 2013 Final Design and Construction Documents: October 2013 - January 2014 Construction & Equipment Installation: April -June; Sept -Nov 2014 Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 3 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends moving forward thru the entitlement process with Option 1 with the Lower Level Add Option. This option will provide improved operational efficiency, safety, guest experience and aesthetics of the Lionshead Parking Structure Entry. Currently this option is conceptually estimated to be over budget by $900,000. By moving this project through the entitlement process the design will progress to a level where a more detailed and accurate cost estimate can be completed. Final budget adjustments from TIF can then occur during the 2014 capital budget approval process allowing the project to be constructed next spring and fall. V. ATTACHMENTS Cost Estimate Presentation Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 4 Lionshead Parking Structure Entry - Preliminaray Cost Estimate (updated 06.25.20131 CONCEPTUAL OPTION 1 - Refer to Staff memo for summary A BASE / CORE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS Qty. B 1 Structures (canopy and supervisor booth) 2 Landscape Improvements 3 Snowmelt & Concrete Surface - transaction areas only 4 Asphalt surfacing & striping - queuing areas 5 Upper Deck Exit Ramp Widening / Snowmelt 6 New islands 7 Drainage 8 Signage and Lighting *snowmelt includes new boiler cost of $100,000 SUB TOTAL 9 Soft Costs Construction (CM, Testing, TC, Mob, etc) 10 Design 11 Design Contingency 12 Construction Contingency GRAND TOTAL Units Cost Per Unit Total 4,200 SF $150 $ 630,000.00 2,000 SF $13 $ 26,000.00 6,000 SF $47 $ 282,000.00 13,700 SF $5 $ 68,500.00 1 1 Allowance $ 125,000.00 2,300 SF $5 $ 11,500.00 1 1 Allowance $ 60,000.00 1 1 Allowance $ 80,000.00 S 1.283.000.00 POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS - incremental to base costs 1 Lower level skier drop -off reconfig and new exit / new ramp 2 Add for Concrete Pavers - transaction and queing areas 3 Snowmelt - all areas * *assumes using new boiler factored in base costs above SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL w/ OPTIONS 7/2/2013 $ 1,798,000.00 1 1 Allowance $ 200,000.00 250,000.00 17,700 $ 160,000.00 $8 $ 141,600.00 $ 30,000.00 11,700 SF 515 $ 125,000.00 POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS - incremental to base costs 1 Lower level skier drop -off reconfig and new exit / new ramp 2 Add for Concrete Pavers - transaction and queing areas 3 Snowmelt - all areas * *assumes using new boiler factored in base costs above SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL w/ OPTIONS 7/2/2013 $ 1,798,000.00 1 1 Allowance $ 250,000.00 17,700 SF $8 $ 141,600.00 11,700 SF 515 $ 175,500.00 $ 567,100.00 $ 2,365,100.00 Lionshead Entry Improvements y1mill 1 n , JLjly 2j 20'J'�)' OZ E H R E N 7/2/2013 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS TOWN OF VAIL Purpose Lionshead Entry Improvements 2014 • Improve operational efficiency, safety, guest experience and aesthetics of the Lionshead Structure • Project Overview and Goals (2 -4 -13) • Transaction Rates (4 -2 -13) • Frontage Rd Traffic Flow (4- 16 -13) • Aesthetic Improvement Concepts (7 -2 -13) 7/2/2013 Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates Existing Conditions / JJ f i bsi \ I a 7ZEHRE N, _ _ L AN�ASSOCIATES, INC._ — Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 3 Option 1 Option 1 with Canopy Option 1 �po�am�m_lsluarge�f Offset Entry/Exit b –_ -- — _ - �- -- 3 lanes in 3 lanes out Additional Lamcape and �_ - - Aesthetic enhancements Snowmelt Area - - - - - - -__ Iliit New exit striping Is aligned perpendicular with Frontage road, this eliminates contusion and N will improve efficiency fc 1"'SpBler "or auto pay device (typ.) is -c Offset entry / exit allows -� - more cars to clue, e� I l Ilihll9il Manned Booth (typ.) LU 12" curb with Plants / "7 I y Planters --- - -I Er SnowmeM Area - 7 Specialty paving area - -- -- °� ��`' Architectural overhead element designed -. to complement recent structure _ V1 } L.. ziC' .- aciddionslimprovements (see images below) - rn Demo existing wall to F��f Overhead element may also have solar collectors. create 2 exit lanes ,(r ' ° _ and linger wdIu turn AdditionalLanscapeand ('~ -- - - m a Aesthetic enhancements New Supervisor Booth (10'x20') to be .c Snowmelt Area Integrated with the overhead structure C �{� O Gated overslre vehicle access to remain For snow 7 plow vehicles,mainienance vehicles and summer skate park construction. ;X now Storage I _ I { u n 6 /I9(1 3 Z, Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates IH Option 1 - enlargement Additional lonscape and Aesthetic enhancements "Spitter" or auto pay — device (typ.) Offset entry / exit allows — more cars to que, 12" curb with Plants/ — Planters Specialty paving area —�/ Demo existing wall to—� create 2 exit lanes and larger radius turn I I ♦ Additional Lanscape and-1� Aesthetic enhancements LT Snow Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates r— Snowmelt Area � I � � f '4111 New Supervisor Booth ( Snowmelt Area integrated with the owe Gated oversize vehicle access t plow vehicles, maintenance veh skate park construction. 7/2/2013 5 i� Manned Booth (ty J� I Snowmelt Area ��1T 6 "• Architectural over I r to complement re _ additions /improve Overhead elemei New Supervisor Booth ( Snowmelt Area integrated with the owe Gated oversize vehicle access t plow vehicles, maintenance veh skate park construction. 7/2/2013 5 Option 1- enlargement with queuing Additional tanscape and Aesthetic enhancements "Spiffier" or auto pay device (typ•) Offset entry / exit allows more cars to clue, I 12" curb with Plants/ Planters Specialty paving area Demo existing wall to create 2 exit lanes and larger radius turn I T 4dditional tanscape and 1. 4esthetic enhancements I I I I L j <T f ;XX Snow Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates Snowmelt Area 1 I I i !4 �N = t!� Snowmelt Area 7/2/2013 Manned Booth Snowmelt Area Architectural ove to complement r additions /impro� Overhead elenni New Supervisor Booth integrated with the ov Gated oversize vehicle access plow vehicles,maintenance vel skate park construction. We I Option 2 Additional Lonscope and Aesthetic enhancements Offset entry / exit allows more _ tor L s to que, "spicier" or ..to pay device (typ.) Snow sloroge> Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates Option 2 - New Separated (a h d..... n Exit Ramp flJa new Exit "ramp" 7/2/2013 additionslimpr —nn—is (so. images below) C a a m New Supervisor Booth (10'x20') to be s Integrated with the overhead structure O Gated oversize vehicle access needs to remain for snow plow veh'rcles,mainienance vehicles and summer skate park construction. This is a challege given the new exit ramp concept. 7 j New exit striping Is aligned perpendicular with - �� o /' frontage road, this eliminates confusion and tlr will improve efficiency E: yr>l) r a � E ' Mannod Booth (typ_) - - 7 N a- 1 Architectural overhead element designed t complement recent structure to new Exit "ramp" 7/2/2013 additionslimpr —nn—is (so. images below) C a a m New Supervisor Booth (10'x20') to be s Integrated with the overhead structure O Gated oversize vehicle access needs to remain for snow plow veh'rcles,mainienance vehicles and summer skate park construction. This is a challege given the new exit ramp concept. 7 Lower Level New Exit Concept Gated exit for pass holders only "Express Exit' for lower level `7 �r / i / / $told to Lion} bead I Short Term Drop Off Exit Concept New Access Ramp for Lowest Level _rn i7 c v E a only Q access n E r= W al 7 Of C Y 40 6 a �i L C l� Pay on Foot Station 2 1roposed m llpnsnead J.- on each of IM1e hvo lower I-eUl 2 Proposed W Vcll VIII,ge ShVCtpre 710129 a Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 8 Architectural Character Recent Improvements — Welcome & Transit Centers Architectural Character ,� Stone base Signage / Banners Architectural Character, MAP �I .. 1 Slone Bose Baal corm /building mnferiata 5lgnage /banners Root fam Roof form /snow fence Timber / Steel defail Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates E Canopy Option 1 Supervisor Stone base at columns Enbv View Aerial View lionshead Canopy Option 1 Town Council Review 7.2.13 v 1t �+ � 4,eC0:f Canopy `Side View � A tiz Entry View 2 Architectural Character p r ilmberfram{ng -d mglaials $1 -.bax Rod lam /slww fhetlGing Maierblt SlgnagelBartnen 7ZEH REN �, arr ❑associaTes. iuc. qN� O a E �i W Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 10 Canopy Option 2 1 tt 4.200 sr Canop) View from Porkinq Structure Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates LT Lionshead Canopy Option 2 Town Council Review 72.13 Architectural Character t-m MSW. M,t R a{w( f. A. 1I Z E H R E N L MD ASSQ IAi S. INC. C Is C Of !7 C O) E E a w c t`o o. 0 J 11 Canopy Option 1- massing study Oppodunity for permanent and /or temporary signage Supervisor Exit booths Existing lights to be replaced with new Town standard Opportunity for "Gateway" identity element and /or temporary banner signage Entry View 1 Entry View 2 7/2/2013 Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates �t L t lionshead Canopy Option 1 Photo Context � Town Council Review 7.2.13 �Oppodunilyfor parking app g`, que signage kC0 8 Oppodunity lot brand identity signage View of proposed canopy and new booths from frontage road Intersection New striping at Intersection with frontage road �ZEHREN L AN A SSOCIATES. INa C _Ot C sl) E; E C W 2 rn a O J 12 Canopy Option 1- existing conditions e, _ _ - +,yam, �LTL�l� Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 13 Canopy Option 1- character study 7/2/2013 Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 14 Estimated Costs A BASE /CORE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 1 Structures (canopy and supervisor booth) 2 Landscape Improvements 3 Snowmelt & Concrete Surface - transaction areas only 4 Asphalt surfacing & striping - queuing areas 5 Upper Deck Exit Ramp Widening/ Snowmelt 6 New islands 7 Drainage 8 Signage and Lighting *snowmen includes new boiler cost of $100,000 9 Soft Costs Construction(CM, Testing, TC, Mob, etc) 10 Design 11 Design Contingency 1.2 Construction Contingency SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL B POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS - incremental to base costs 1 Add for Concrete Pavers - transaction and queing areas 2 Snowmelt - all areas * 3 Lower level skier drop -off reconfig and new exit / new ramp *assumes using new boiler factored in base costs above SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL w% OPTIONS 7QQQ ^ 0 Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates Qtv. Units Cost Per Unit Total 4,200 SF $150 $ 630,000.00 2,000 SF $13 $ 26,000.00 6,000 SF $47 $ 282,000.00 13,700 SF $5 $ 68,500.00 1 1 Allowance $ 125,000.00 2,300 SF $5 $ 11,500.00 1 1 Allowance 60,000.00 1 1 Allowance $ 80,000.00 $ 1,283,000.00 $ 1,798,000.00 17,700 SF $8 $ 200,000.00 11,700 SF $15 $ 160,000.00 1 1 Allowance $ 30,000,00 $ 125,000.00 $ 1,798,000.00 17,700 SF $8 $ 141,600.00 11,700 SF $15 $ 175,500.00 1 1 Allowance $ 250,000.00 $ 567,100.00 $ 2,365,100.00 15 Next Steps Lionshead Entry Improvements • Schematic Design July - September 2013 • DD & Entitlements September - December 2013 • Final Design and CD's • Construction & Equipment January - March 2014 April -June 2014; Sept -Nov 2014 1 7/2/2013 TOWN OF VA l L o Town of Vail I Zehren and Associates 16 rnwN of vn' ir1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail town Code, of the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, with conditions, of a development review application for the review of a variance from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC1 30008/PEC1 30009) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell Michael Suman ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision. BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2013 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved, with conditions, a request to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage and a major exterior alteration or modification to allow for the construction of additions at the Wall Street Building. On May 21, 2013, the Vail Town Council appealed (called -up) the approval of PEC130008 and PEC130009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the Vail Town Council upholds their decision of May 13, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memorandum Planning and Environmental Commission Memorandum Attachment A Attachment B 1 Attachment 132 Attachment C 1 Attachment C2 Attachment D 1 Attachment D2 Applicant's Presentation at the PEC Hearing PEC Results 7/2/2013 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 2013 SUBJECT: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, with conditions, of a development review application for the review of a variance from Section 12 -76- 15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008 /PEC130009) Appellant: Vail Town Council Planner: Warren Campbell SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is located at 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1. II. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL JURISDICTION Pursuant to Section 12- 3 -3C -1, Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decisions; Authority, Vail Town Code, the town council shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any the planning and environmental commission with respect to the provisions of the Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. 7/2/2013 III. PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS Pursuant to Sections 12- 3 -3C -2 and 12- 3 -3C -3, Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decisions; Initiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic procedural criteria for an appeal: A) Standing of the Appellants Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the appellant, the Vail Town Council has standing as an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision. B) Adequacy of the Notice of the Appeal A copy of the Public Notice of the Vail Town Council, June 18, 2013, Public Hearing was sent to the local newspaper on May 31, 2013, pursuant to Section 12- 3 -3C -3, Procedures, Vail Town Code. This item was continued at the June 18, 2013, public hearing to the July 2, 2013, public hearing. C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12- 3 -3C -3, Procedures) requires appeals to be filed in twenty (20) days or less. On May 21, 2013, the appellant, Vail Town Council, filed an appeal (called -up) of the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. IV. SUMMARY The question to be answered by the Vail Town Council regarding this appeal is: Were the requirements of the Commercial Core 1 district, Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan properly applied in the decision to allow for a variance and major exterior alteration or modification to the Wall Street Building located at 225 Wall Street? Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 2 V. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved, with conditions, a request to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage. By a vote of 3 -2 -0 (Pierce and Bird opposed) the Planning and Environmental Commission approved with conditions the major exterior alteration or modification to allow for the construction of additions at the Wall Street Building. The Vail Town Council (appellant) filed an appeal, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code of the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, conditional approval of a Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's approval, with conditions, of development review applications for the review of a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (P E C 130008 / P E C 130009 ). On June 18, 2013, the Vail Town Council, upheld, with modification, the Design Review Board's approval of a new storefront at the Gore Creek Gallery and Traveler Books commercial space located at 158 Gore Creek Drive #132 /Lots A, B, and C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1. The Vail Town Council modified the approved application to require a revised plan which included a knee wall matching the height of the existing knee wall on the commercial store front. VI. REQUIRED ACTION Pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's May 13, 2013, decision. Should the Vail Town Council choose to uphold the determination of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, the following statement is recommended: "The Vail Town Council finds as follows: The Commercial Core 1 district, Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan were properly applied in regard to the May 13, 2013, Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 3 Planning and Environmental Commission's, approval with conditions, of development review applications for a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC1300081PEC130009)" VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning and Environmental Commission May 13, 2013 memorandum B. Planning and Environmental Commission May 13, 2013 hearing results Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 4 0) TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008, PEC130009) Applicant: Wall Street Commercial, LLC, represented by Suman Architects Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Wall Street Commercial, LLC, represented by Suman Architects, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, and the review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the facilitate the construction of a commercial addition at 225 Wall Street (Wall Street Building). Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of the proposed site coverage variance and approval, with conditions, of the proposed exterior alteration or modification subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. Staff's recommendation of approval on the site coverage variance considered the fact that the proposal is not a demo /rebuild and is an addition to an existing structure. Proposals to demo /rebuild are expected to comply with the applied zoning. Approval of a variance does not establish the allowable development on the site, in this case site coverage, when a demo /rebuild is proposed. 7/2/2013 Staff's recommendation of approval, with conditions, on the major exterior alteration includes multiple conditions to address compliance of the proposal with the Vail Village Design Considerations. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Wall Street Commercial, LLC, represented by Suman Architects, is requesting the review of: • A site coverage variance to expand the footprint of the building by 228 square feet resulting in an increase in site coverage from 80.3% to 83.4% (80% permitted). The area on top of the commercial expansion would replace and become the deck for the unit above. • A major exterior alteration to facilitate the expansion of the first floor retail area by 840 square feet and the second floor office by 459 square feet. The proposed site coverage expansion occurs in the space between the Wall Street and the Hong Kong Buildings. The proposal is to increase the commercial floor level south to the shared property line. The commercial expansions under the arcade do not count towards site coverage as they are beneath structure above. The proposal includes new facade materials and colors on the ground floor commercial and the floor levels above. All new fagade materials are located on the east and north elevations. The west and south facades are to remain unchanged. A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's written request (Attachments B), the proposed site and architectural plans (Attachment C), two memorandums from Jeff Winston, Town of Vail consultant, (Attachment D) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The subject property was a part of the original Town of Vail which became effective by the election of August 23, 1966, and the court order of August 26, 1966. The existing Wall Street Building was completed in 1968 prior to zoning in Vail. The property was subsequently zone Commercial Core I District and in 1980 became subject to the Vail Village Design Considerations of the Vail Village Master Plan which rendered the structure legally non - conforming in regards to site coverage. On September 10, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration was approved to increase the American Ski Exchange commercial space by 96 square feet. This approval facilitated the reconfiguration of the entry and a bay window. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 2 On December 16, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration was approved to increase the Rightfit Sports (currently Jewels of the West) commercial space by 10 square feet and a second floor office space by 5 square feet. On April 12, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration to add 35 square feet of commercial floor area to the American Ski Exchange tenant space. On April 10, 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional use permit to eliminate a dwelling unit through the combination of Units 301 and 303. The result was a decrease in the number of dwelling units on the site from 9 to 8. NO exterior alterations were proposed. On June 24, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration and height variance request for the consolidation of Units 301 and 303 resulting in the addition of to dormers on the west elevation. On March 11 and 25, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission tabled this request without discussion. On April 8, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposal and tabled it after discussion. The Commission identified a need for a site plan which shows the buildings on the east side of Wall Street to establish context, an increase in the landscaping on the west elevation of the Wall Street Building, a change to the first floor commercial infill at the northeast corner to open up site lines into Wall Street, and the need for a pedestrian easement. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12 -7B Commercial Core 1 (CC1) District (in part) 12 -7B -1: PURPOSE: The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The zoning regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 3 preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. Chapter 12 -17, Variances (in part) 12 -17 -1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER II — LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES: The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth/ Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 4 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 4. Village Core/ Lionshead 4.2. Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Vail Villaae Master Plan VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Vail Village Design Considerations V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Lot Size: Geological Hazards: 225 Wall Street Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1 Commercial Core I (CC1) Village Master Plan Mixed Use 7,301 sq.ft. (0.1676 acre) None Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 5 Standard Lot Area Setback: West East North South Height Site Coverage Landscaping Density (GRFA) Density DUs Parking *Vail Village Design Plan Allowed /Required 5,000 sf per VVDG* per VVDG per VVDG per VVDG 60% less than 33 ft. 40% from 33 ft. to 43 ft. 0% over 43 ft. 5,840.8 sf 80% no net loss softscape 5,840 sf 4 DUs (25 DUs /acre) 12 DUs (1.4 /DU) Commercial VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Proposed 7,301 sf no change 4 feet no change 0 feet no change 0 feet no change 6.4 feet 0 feet 100% no change 91% no change 9% no change 5,864 sf 6,092 sf 80.3% 83.4% 63 sf 132 sf (0.01%) (0.02 %) n/a no change 8 DUs no change 13 required no change 0 provided 0 required no change Land Use Zoning North: Children's Fountain No zoning South: Commercial (Hong Kong Building) Commercial Core I East: Mixed Use (Casino Building) Commercial Core I West: Mixed Use (Lodge at Vail) Commercial Core I VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Site Coverage Variance The review criteria for a variance request of this nature are prescribed by Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, as follows: Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 6 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Wall Street Building currently exceeds the allowable site coverage in the CC1 district. The proposal to add an additional 228 square feet increase the site coverage to 83.4 %. The proposed increase in site coverage would occur on the south side of the Wall Street Building up to the shared property line with the Hong Kong Building. This area is approximately 6.4 feet in width and contains a stairwell to the basement level. The space is currently fenced off from view and receives no sunlight. The infill of the space will have impacts to the Hong Kong Building with regard to compliance with the adopted Town of Vail Building Code should they propose an addition or redevelopment. The expansion of the Wall Street Building first floor commercial to the property line will create a zero lot line development. The ownership of the Hong Kong Building is aware of the requested proposal and have not contacted the town with concerns. The proposed Wall Street Building expansion does not cause the Hong Kong Building to make any changes or improvements to remain in compliance with the Town of Vail Building Code. A benefit of zero lot line construction in this instance is that an unaesthetic space between the buildings which receives no daylight will be eliminated and become functional commercial space. Staff has consistently reviewed site coverage variances in the Vail Village in close concert with any proposed changes in landscaping. The applicant proposes an increase in softscape landscaping for the site from 63 to 132 square feet. This net increase of 69 square feet occurs on the southwest corner of the property. In conjunction with the major exterior alteration request, Staff discusses the need to maintain an organically shaped landscape planter along the east facade with a minimum of the same area of landscaping. The proposal contains a design to maintain the area and organically reconfigure the single existing landscaping area along the east facade of the Wall Street Building. Staff does not believe the proposal to expand the commercial floor level to the south, in a space which is visually unattractive and underutilized, will have any negative effect on the potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposed site coverage variance will not be detrimental to the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The proposal would increase the site coverage on the site by 3.1 %. As was stated previously in the memorandum the Wall Street Building was constructed prior to the establishment of zoning in Vail. It was subsequently zoned CC1 and rendered non- conforming with regard to site coverage. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 7 Many of the existing structures within the CC1 zone district exceed the allowable 80% site coverage. Variances have been approved for the Red Lion Building (83.6 %), Vista Bahn Building (85 %), and the Slifer Building (97.5 %). An SDD was approved for the Bridge Street Lodge (Golden Peak House) to have a site coverage of 94 %. The Clock Tower Building (Gorsuch) has an existing site coverage of 87 %. The space proposed for commercial expansion does not serve as a public space, pedestrian circulation, or landscaping. The space does not receive sunlight and is visually detracting from the village streetscape and architecture. Staff finds that this proposal will provide the minimum relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the site coverage regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity and within CC1 and compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission has held that alterations and variances for existing buildings may be appropriate based upon each specific set of circumstances. Projects which are demo /rebuild are not typically afforded variances. An expectation of compliance is expected for demo /rebuild projects with regard to the applied zone district. Staff finds that the proposed variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Staff finds that approval of this site coverage variance in conjunction with the associated major exterior alteration application, as conditioned by staff, will grant flexibility in the implementation of the Town's regulations and design guidelines to help protect and maintain the existing character of Vail Village, consistent with the stated purpose of the CC1 district and Vail Village Master Plan. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The space proposed for first floor commercial expansion is currently fenced off from view and contains a staircase to the basement level. The 6.4 foot wide space is located approximately 40 feet below the roof forms of the Wall Street Building and the adjacent Hong Kong Building. The space does not currently receive any direct sunlight and is shade for the entirety of the day and year. Staff finds that the proposed site coverage variance will have no negative effect on the adjacent properties, light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. EXTERIOR ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION A major exterior alteration with the CC1 district requires review and compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 8 Design Considerations, and the zone district. The review criteria for an exterior alteration or modification request of this nature are prescribed by Section 12 -713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, as follows: 1. The proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district as specified in Section 12 -7B -1, Vail Town Code. Staff finds that the proposal, if amended as recommended by staff in the following criteria, is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district since it will "maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area", will provide "adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses'; continues the "maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways" and continues the "building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." Properties zoned CC1 are required to mitigate the employee generation created by development. The proposal submitted by the applicant is required to mitigate the expansion of the commercial floor area. Pursuant to Chapter 12 -23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code the development is required to mitigate 20% of the employees generated by the net new floor area. Chapter 22 included regulations identifying employee generation and mitigation requirements. The applicant is proposing to add 840 of retail and 459 square feet of business /professional office. Based upon these areas and the proposed land uses the applicant is required to mitigate 0.70 employees. This can be accomplished either through the provision of employee housing within the town or payment of a fee -in -lieu. The current fee to mitigate a full employee is $74,481. The method of mitigation has not been determined by the applicant in conjunction with this proposal. The mitigation must be selected prior to release of the building permit. If a fee -in -lieu is selected it is required prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff believes the proposal complies with this criterion. 2. The proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, Vail Village Design Considerations, Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the purpose of the plan as follows: "This Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. This Plan emphasizes the critical need to balance and coordinate parking and transportation systems with future improvements to Vail Mountain that will increase the "in and out of Valley" lift capacity. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 9 development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides valuable information for a wide variety of people and interests. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. " The Vail Village Master Plan established six goals containing objectives, policies and action steps. Staff believes the following goals, objectives and policies are applicable to the Wall Street Building major exterior alteration proposal. "GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. Objective 1.1: Implement a consistent development review process to reinforce the character of the Village. Policy 1.1.1: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgradinq and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Objective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.1: The historical importance of structures, landmarks, plazas and other similar features shall be taken into consideration in the development review process. Policy 1.4.2: The Town may grant flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of its regulations and design guidelines to help protect and maintain the existing character of Vail Village. Policy 1.4.3: Identification of "historic" importance shall not be used as the sole means of preventing or prohibiting development in Vail Village. GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 10 Obiective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Policy 2.1.1: The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives" of the Vail Village Master Plan. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Policy 2.2.1: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existinq architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Villaae. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Policy 2.4.1: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Policy 2.4.2: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Policy 2.5.2: The town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate budding renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of employee housing units in Vail Village through the efforts of the private sector. Policy 2.6.1: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Policy 2.6.2: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy 2.6.3: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing appropriate assistance. Policy 2.6.4: Employee housing shall be developed in the Village when required by the Town's adopted Zoning Regulations. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 11 GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIOTITY THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian warms. Policy 3.1.2: Public art and other similar landmark features shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. Policy 3.1.3: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adiacent to, or visible from, public areas." Chapter 7 of the Vail Village Master Plan identifies ten Vail Village Sub - Areas. Within each sub -areas concepts are described which are meant to serve as "advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission ". The Wall Street Building is located within Sub -Area #3. Sub -Area 3# is as follows: rx.� xbind�wlfi "This pedestrianized area of the Village represents the traditional image of Vail. A mixture of residential and commercial uses, limited vehicular access, and inter- connected pedestrian ways are some of the characteristics that distinguish this area from other portions of the Village. With the exception of embellishing Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 12 pedestrian walkways, developing plazas with greenspace, and adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the community to preserve the character of the Village as it is today. The core area, with its predominantly Tyrolean architecture; is the site of the earliest development in Vail. Over time, a need to upgrade and improve infrastructure such as loading and delivery facilities, drainage, paved surfaces and other landscape features has become apparent. Many improvements to public spaces will be addressed as part of an overall streetscape improvement project. There is also the potential to initiate a number of these improvements in conjunction with private sector development projects. Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the; core area's built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. Most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyranos Building, the Lodge at Vail, and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties develop to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the primary tool in guiding private development proposals in the core area since 1980. The Guide Plan will continue to be used in conjunction with the goals and design criteria outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. Infill and redevelopment proposals shall be reviewed for compliance with the design criteria, goals, objectives and policies established in these respective plans." The Vail Village Design Consideration are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff enlisted the architectural design review services of Jeff Winston to aid in the review of the major exterior alteration's compliance with the Vail Village Design considerations. Staff has attached Jeff Winston's written comments (Attachment E) for review. The Vail Village Design Considerations identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: A. Pedestrian ization A primary characteristic and significant reason for the success of Vail Village is the pedestrian experience. The pedestrian experience is comprised of numerous elements including but not limited to architecture, building scale, material use, vitality and activity created by the permitted uses on the first floor, connectivity of pedestrian ways, and landscaping. Wall Street is unique in the Vail pedestrian experience. It is the one area in the Village in which there is never vehicular travel or loading and delivery occurring. This factor allowed for a more intimate streetscape design and increased landscaping. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 13 The proposal to infill beneath the arcade and between the Wall Street Building and the Hong Kong Building will have impact on the pedestrian experience. The infill will impact current circulation patterns and views. Staff believes this infill will result in changes to the pedestrian experience, however, through architectural design the pedestrian experience can be maintained and improved. Staff believes there are impacts to the pedestrian experience created by the proposal to infill a portion of the at -grade two -story design element at the northeast corner of the Wall Street Building. This opening on the corner of the building provides for unique views up Wall Street with regard to the pedestrian experience. Staff believes these views serve to draw pedestrians into Wall Street which is positive to the overall experience. Additionally, the open arcade at the corner allows for pedestrians to cut through to Wall Street. Since the last public hearing the applicant has revised their proposal to infill a portion of the at -grade two -story design element at the northeast corner. This was in response to staff's and the Commission's comments regarding the need to maintain pedestrians views up into Wall Street. The proposal includes the expansion of commercial floor area while maintaining 4 feet 7 inches between the new commercial fagade and the corner column. Staff visited the site to see a mock -up of proposed commercial extension and the 4 feet 7 inch spacing does have a positive impact on the pedestrian views into Wall Street when compared to a complete infill of the corner at- grade. Staff believes this design solutions allows for some infill of the at -grade portion of the northeast corner while maintaining pedestrian views and a circulation cut - through up to Wall Street. B. Vehicular penetration As stated above, Wall Street is unique and benefits from the inability for any vehicular traffic to enter the street. The proposal does not result in any change to the ability of vehicles to access the street. C. Streetscape Framework The Vail Village Design Considerations identify two methods for improving the pedestrian experience through the streetscape framework. They include the inclusion of open space and landscaping to establish a "soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes" and the infill of commercial storefronts and infill development to create "new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest'. Previously staff identified a concern with the proposal to reduce and reconfigure the existing landscape planter located on the east fagade of the Wall Street Building. Currently this is the single landscaping planter on the west side of Wall Street along the building fagade. The existing planter is comprised of approximately 65 square Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 14 feet of landscaping with an organic shape. The revised proposal is to maintain the approximately 65 square feet of softscape in a new irregularly shaped planter. Staff believes the proposed to maintain the current area of the landscape planter on the east facade is in keeping the intent of the Code provison requiring no net loss of landscaping. There is an overall increase in landscaping for the site by 69 square feet in the southwest corner of the site. This increase in softscape landscaping is a positive when compared to the existing concrete, however, it will be located behind a fence and not serve to enhance the pedestrian experience, provide for the ability to install permanent plantings, provide for a visual break -up of the built environment, and tie the Village visually with the mountain setting. Staff had identified and spoken with the applicant regarding the potential for additional landscaping along the north facade of the structure facing Children's Fountain. Staff would like to continue to pursue opportunities to place a landscaping bed along this facade which would likely be located partial within the Gore Creek Drive right -of -way. Staff believes opportunities to add additional landscaping to the east and north facades should be explored and pursued. D. Street Enclosure Street enclosure is the term used to define how the built environment should be design to create a "comfortable" enclosure of the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms which need to have specific characteristics to create a comfortable pedestrian experience. The Vail Village Design Considerations identify an appropriate width to height ratio for pedestrian ways and adjacent building forms. The proposal to infill beneath the Wall Street Building arcade will narrow the width of the pedestrian way, but the overall experience does not change as the upper levels of the structure create the overall pedestrian experience for Wall Street. There is approximately 11 feet of width between the Wall Street Building arcade column line and the landscaping planters to the east at the narrowest point. The proposed commercial infill of the arcade will eliminate the ability for the outdoor display of goods within the arcade. With the infill of the arcade tenants may desire to continue to display their goods outside of their space narrowing the pedestrian experience of Wall Street. This practice would result in a significant impact on the width of the pedestrian way and experience of Wall Street. The infill of the arcade and the continued outdoor display could result in a reduction of the pedestrian width of Wall Street to approximately 8 feet at the narrowest point (distance between property line and landscape planters to the east). Staff recommends that in conjunction with any approval for the infill of the commercial arcade that the property provide a pedestrian easement from the face of the facade to the property line. If approved, the easement would contain language regarding the need to keep the easement free of any obstructions such as outdoor display. Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 15 E. Street Edge The Vail Village Design Considerations identify the need for a "strong but irregular edge to the street' in the Village Core. There are no standard setback requirements in Vail Village in order to achieve an "intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give a strong definition to the pedestrian street." The Street Edge design consideration further describes that it should not be implied that a continuous building frontage along a property line is appropriate. It states the following: "A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas, give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel." Staff believes that the proposed infill of the at -grade portion of the two -story arcade at the northeast corner of the structure is contrary to the goal of this consideration. The arcade at the northeast corner serves as an inset to the structure at the pedestrian level which provides views into Wall Street, shelter, and an element of a unique architectural landmark. Staff believes that while the infill of commercial arcade further to the south will remove some of the variability of the street edge it may have the beneficial effect of making the storefronts more visible. F. Building Height The proposed major exterior alteration does not affect building height. G. View and Focal Points The Vail Village Design Considerations recognize the need for visual orientation and connectivity to the mountain and landmarks. The consideration identifies the importance of view corridors and view connections for pedestrians through out the Village. The Wall Street Building is not a part of any adopted view corridor as found in Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code. With the exception noted in the above considerations regarding the infill of the two - story arcade, staff believes there is no negative impact to views from a pedestrian perspective created by the proposal. There may be slight impacts on the view to the stairs on Wall Street from Gore Creek Drive looking south. H. Service and Delivery Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 16 The proposed major exterior alteration does not affect service and delivery to the site. I. Sun /shade The proposed major exterior alteration does not affect the sun /shade aspects of the adjacent buildings and pedestrian ways. J. Architecture /Landscaping Considerations The Vail Village Design Considerations identify the importance of many elements of architecture in creating, establishing, and continuing Vail Village as a special place. Staff has taken the review by Jeff Winston with regard to this consideration and included it below. Staff agrees with Jeff Winston's findings and recommends they be considered by the Design Review Board. Two memorandums from Jeff Winston have been attached for reference (Attachment D). Staff finds that the application needs to be modified in order to be consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, including the Vail Village Master Plan, Urban Design Guide Plan, Design Considerations and the Vail Land Use Plan, as outlined above. Staff has proposed conditions to address the needed changes to be in compliance with this criterion. 3. The proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. With the exception of the comments noted above, Staff does not find any other element that would negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal is in compliance with this criterion. VIII. RECOMMENDATION SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of this request for a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008) and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 17 "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008) and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration or modification request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission imposes the following condition: "I. This variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated major exterior alteration application." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 13, 2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Commercial Core 1 District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the Commercial Core I District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Commercial Core 1 District. " Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 18 EXTERIOR ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this request for an exterior alteration or modification pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130009) and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission agree with staff's recommendation regarding the enclosure of the at -grade portion of the northeast corner and the incorporation of a minimum of 65 square feet of landscaping on the east and north facades, staff recommends providing direction to the applicant and tabling this item to the April 22, 2013 public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration or modification request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for an exterior alteration or modification pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130009)" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration or modification request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission imposes the following conditions: "I. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall mitigate the 0.70 employee impact created by this commercial addition in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code. 3. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with a pedestrian easement paralleling the extent of the east fagade of the Wall Street Building which shall be from the building fagade to the property line prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy. The pedestrian easement shall provide for unobstructed pedestrian access. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 19 "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 13, 2013, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district as specified in section 12 -7B -1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's request for the variance and major exterior alteration C. Proposed architectural plans D. Memorandums from Jeff Winston dated March 4 and 26, 2013 Town of Vail 7/2/2013 Page 20 Vail Village Filing 1, Block 5 -C, Part of Lots B & C Lazier Arcade Condos - A.K.A. Wall Street Building (225 Wall Street) Subject Property e This map....reared by the Town ofVall GIS Team. use of this map should be for general purposes only. The Town of Vail does not warrant the —u —Y of the'mf., —Ion contained herein. Feet (where shown, parcel line work is approximate) 0 75 150 Last Modified: March 6, 2013 TOWN OF VAIC SUMAN ARCHITECTS May 7, 2013 Wall Street Building Renovation Variance Application for Site Coverage Variance RE: Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code A. Description of Variance Requested As a part of exterior upgrades being proposed to the existing Wall Street Building, the abandoned area south of the building is proposed to be enclosed as new commercial area. The enclosure would convert a critical yet unutilized section of the Vail Village retail fabric from a dead space into a contributing commercial space. In order to transform the area in focus, a site coverage variance is required. The variance will allow for 202 sq. ft. of additional retail to be created. This enclosure is an important part of significant improvements to a historic structure in the heart of Vail Village. Below is a detailed breakdown of the existing conditions: Zoning Statistics Lot size: 7,301 sq. ft. (0.1676 acres) Zoning: High Density Multiple Family Development Standard Allowed /Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: West 0 ft. 4 ft. No Change South 0 ft. 6.4 ft. 0 ft. East 0 ft. 0 ft. No Change North 0 ft. 0 ft. No Change Site Coverage: 5,841 sq. ft. 5,864 sq. ft. 6,092 sq. ft. (increase of 228 sq. ft.) Commercial: Basement Retail 875 sq. ft. No Change First Floor Retail 3,802 sq. ft. 4,642 sq. ft. (increase of 840 sq. ft.) Second Floor Office 3,495 sq. ft. 3,829 sq. ft. (increase of 334 sq. ft.) Landscape Area: 63 sq. ft. 132 sq. ft. (increase of 69 sq. ft.) Total Proposed Additional Site Coverage michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 228 sq. ft. o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S B. Analysis of Proposal The Wall Street Building was built in the 1960's prior to zoning and is currently non - conforming to the site coverage restriction of 80% of lot size. In addition, buildings were developed around the Wall Street Building creating the unique alley condition along the south property line. Improvements to the surrounding buildings and streetscape have occurred over the years, yet the Wall Street building property has received none. Goals of the proposed renovation are two -fold: one, improve and expand the retail experience along Wall Street and two, improve the material quality, aesthetics, and hierarchy of the architecture. Currently, the "alley" space is an eye sore with run down gate /fences on both ends. It is dark, unused and has become a debris collector. The basement stair that resides in the space has not functioned for years. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan encourages spaces in the village core to provide interest and vibrancy for the pedestrian experience. Some key excerpts from the Guide Plan that resonate with this application are: • Infill commercial storefronts expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. • Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and oriented to intersection. This forgotten area of property clearly does not support the intent of the Guide Plan. There is no other space like it in the Village core and therefore, is an exceptional circumstance in its zone district category. Storefront infill at this alley enclosure, as well as along the existing colonnade, will unify the east facade of the Wall Street Building and provide increased transparency for high quality retail space along Wall Street. Additionally, a new stucco finish is proposed to replace the existing brick columns. A new framework around the new storefront openings adds visual strength to the building base. At the northeast corner of the building, step backs in the current east and north facades provide an opportunity for special treatment of the distinct corner form. A new second floor office space with new horizontal wood siding and a unique balcony guardrail further reinforce to importance of the area. The arcade at the northeast corner is partially enclosed to provide better retail fronts to the north and east while still maintaining pedestrian circulation to occur through it. This gives the highly visible corner more prominence and reinforces the buildings main entry area. The proposed new materials and details are not only upgrades to the building quality, but also improvements toward achieving the intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan. See Appendix A for current photos of the Wall Street Building and proposed new stone veneer. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S C. Approval Criteria 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. By enclosing the proposed area, the variance will allow the retail frontage to flow along Wall Street. The current gate with lock and sign create an eye sore and impediment to the unification of the retail facade. Granting the variance will reinforce the CC1 zoning intent by ensuring "the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village" and is therefore not inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in CC1. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Relief from the strict and literal enforcement is necessary to allow this particular area of the property to achieve compatibility with the character of the surrounding context. The space should have been retail from the beginning and as retail, will better follow the intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will afford a better environment as enclosed space rather than the dark forgotten space that currently exists. The terrace created on top of the enclosure will provide a much more comfortable experience with better light and air versus the confined second level decks that exist today. There is no impact on facilities, utilities, or public safety due to the current locked gate along the east end and the fence along the west end preventing access. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T 5 APPENDIX A PHOTO 1 - Northeast building corner and main entrance of Wall Street Building michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S PHOTO 2 - East colonnade of Wall Street Building along Wall Street michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS PHOTO 3 - Northeast 2 -story exterior area proposed to be enclosed michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS PHOTO 4 - East Side of Wall Street Building michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS PHOTO 5 - Southeast building corner of Wall Street Building and Wall Street michael@sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S PHOTO 6 - Southeast corner of Wall Street Building and alley east end with gate michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S PHOTO 7 - East gate of proposed enclosure area michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S PHOTO 8 - North side of Wall Street Building michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S PHOTO 9 - West side of Wall Street Building michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T 5 PHOTO 10 - West fence of proposed enclosure area michael@sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS April 2, 2013 Wall Street Building Renovation Major Exterior Alteration Application for PEC RE: Exterior Improvements to the Lazier Arcade Condominium Building - a.k.a. The Wall Street Building The new owner of retail and second floor office space is proposing to make significant upgrades and improvements to the existing Wall Street Building in Vail Village. Strategic expansion areas on the retail and office levels; new storefront infill for improved transparency; new accent siding areas; a corner anchor /entry element; and miscellaneous finish upgrades make up the bulk of the application. As it stands today, the Wall Street Building looks tired and lacks the presence of quality expected of such an important location in Vail Village. The current retail experience is cluttered, forcing pedestrians to navigate confusing architecture for entry to the structure. Goals of the proposed renovation are two -fold: one, improved clarity and transparency for the retail experience along Wall Street and two, improved quality, aesthetics, and hierarchy for the architecture. Acknowledging the established character of its surroundings, the proposed improvements pursue balance between prescribed precedence and additional flavor afforded by creative response to a specific structure's needs. Granting of this exterior alteration proposal will provide the Wall Street Building with the high quality upgrade encouraged by the Vail Village Master Plan. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. Pedestrianianization The pedestrianization of Wall Street is reinforced by eliminating the cluttered colonnade space. The infill brings the retail closer to the existing Wall Street pedestrian stream for improved connection. With better transparency and building organization, the pedestrians along Wall Street will have better access to the retail experience. B. Vehicle Penetration The proposal has no effect on vehicle penetration surrounding the Wall Street Building C. Streetscape Framework The proposal clearly follows the suggested type of improvements in this section. "Infill commercial storefronts expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key location along pedestrian routes." The stepped infill of retail storefronts strengthen the void of the new building entrance providing a variety of spaces along the base of the building. D. Street Enclosure The bulk and mass above already exists, yet the retail base is setback, closed, cluttered, and dark. By pulling the retail forward as a transparent infill with proper interior lighting, the base of the pedestrian level of the building becomes understandable, inviting and bright. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S Street Edge Given the dynamic design of Wall Street and the stepping footprint of the existing Wall Street Building, their shared irregular edge is strengthened with the proposed retail infill. Building Height The proposal has no effect on the current building height of the Wall Street Building G. Views and Focal Points The view corridor of the ski mountain is reinforced by the strengthened edge of the building edge. H. Service and Delivery Currently the existing alley along the south edge of the property is used for box storage and collects debris. It is inaccessible for vehicle or service use and is therefore useless. It is far more valuable to the Vail Village as retail space which is what is proposed. Sun /Shade The existing building massing and height will remain and therefore the proposal has no effect on the surrounding properties. However, eliminating the dark spaces along the retail level by pulling the entry and retail forward is a net positive. ARCHITECTURE /LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS Roofs As it stands, the Wall Street Building roof embodies the recommendations of this section and the proposal has no effect on the current roof design. 2. Facades Materials on the existing building are generally stucco with some brick columns and one wood siding accent area. Upgrading and enhancing this palette is proposed by replacing the failing brick with a new smooth stucco finish and giving it more depth for visual strength. An additional area of siding is also proposed at the NE corner element to reinforce it's importance. Stucco will still remain the dominant finish of the building per the recommendations of this section. The new stucco treatment is introduced as an organizing frame around the new storefront openings which are held to the back of the columns for depth. A new canopy has been introduced to provide shade, depth and detail to the new east facade. The highly visible northeast corner of the building and entry are very confusing and unresolved. Adding new materials, details, openings and guardrail design creates a strong corner anchor for the street intersection with completed retail fronts to the north and east. In addition, the strategic glass infill areas on the first and second levels reinforce the anchor element and provide needed importance for the building entry location while maintaining pedestrian circulation through it. Color for the new materials all relate to the natural environment yet hope to liven up the palette. The new color proposed for the existing textured stucco finish in a vibrant yellow. The new proposed smooth stucco color is a grey /beige, the wood siding is a richer brown, and the trim accent color will be a darker version of the siding. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS Transparency is a critical part of this application. Replacing the lower level walls and colonnade with storefront provides the desired openness and attraction this section encourages. Offices on the second level currently have small repetitive windows which are contrary to their function and what is typical in the village core. A series of larger window openings will replace the existing smaller openings for better daylight to the interior. The window units in each group are then periodically divided with wood trim similar to existing second story window sections in the village. See photo group 1 for precedence in Vail. The new predominantly glass NE building corner element is achieved by extending the large retail sections of glass to the second level commercial. As stated in this section of the guide plan, "transparent store fronts are `people attractors" and inviting. Thus, the transparent treatment of both commercial levels at the NE building corner around the building entrance are very appropriate. Photo 2 in appendix A shows two story areas of glass on the Gorsuch Building similar to what is proposed. 3. Windows The existing column rhythm provides a natural grouping for the new lower level storefront areas. Each individual retailer will be encouraged to individualize their infill while working with the DRB on color and divide layout. The second level commercial "horizontal repetition of single window elements" is contrary to this section and their commercial function. The new larger second level window groups attempts to better transition the building window areas from the open retail level to the privatized residential openings on the third floor. 4. Doors The proposed doors are part of the storefronts and will have transparency. The final design of each will be developed with the DRB. 5. Trim Wood trim is proposed around most openings and groups. The east facing storefront infill areas, however use the stone columns to frame the openings. Specific details are intended to be resolved with the DRB. 6. Decks and Patios The proposal expands the existing second level deck off the south side offices. The shared deck is a result of the proposed alley expansion and affords a better environment with the additional area. 7. Balconies Currently, the Wall Street Building balconies embody the recommendations of this section and the proposal has no effect on them. They will be freshened up with a new brown stain color to match the siding color, however. The NE residential on the third level is proposed to have a new open metal guardrail to reinforce the uniqueness of the NE corner element by adding detail. 8. Accent Elements Signage and other accent elements will be addressed with the individual tenant improvement efforts and resolved with the DRB. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 9. Landscape Elements A net increase of 69 sq. ft. of softscape is associated with the proposed improvements. Specific details and design is intended to be resolved with the DRB. The only existing planter along the east fapade is proposed to be reconfigured while maintaining the same amount of softscape. 10. Service The building dumpster is currently screened by fencing and the proposal has no effect on this section. michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN ARCHITECTS APPENDIX A PHOTO GROUP 1 - Second level commercial horizontal window sections michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 o 970.479.7502 Vail, CO 81657 m 970.471.6122 7/2/2013 SUMAN ARCHITECTS PHOTO 2 - Two story areas of transparency for commercial. W michael @sumanarchitects.com 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 7/2/2013 o 970.479.7502 m 970.471.6122 VVAkLL STREET Bt)ILDINCI E b � . LOT 1 BLOCK 5- VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING, VAILCOLORADO 81657 N R U E z UL0 0 w N MATERIAL SYMBOLS: ABBREVIATIONS: GENERAL NOTES: DRAWING INDEX: GENERAL o A0.0 COVER EARTH PLYWOOD ABV ABOVE L LENGTH Ol DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS SURVEY AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR LDT LIGHT AND DRAPERY TROUGH AP ACCESS PANEL LT LIGHT TROUGH 0D00 POROUS FILL FINISH WOOD AC ACOUSTICAL LTL LINTEL 02 THE VERIFY ALL AND UTILITY JOB S TEDPR ORITO BEGIINNIINTG ANY WORK OR ORDERI GS ON DRAWING INDEX: ARCHITECTURAL 0 /DRAINAGE ADD ADDENDUM LVR LOUVER ADJ ADJACENT MH MANHOLE ANY MATERIALS. nOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS IMMEDIATELY. /� A0.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN ALT ALTERNATE MFR MANUFACTURE (ER) STONE MASONRY WOOD -ROUGH ALUM ALUMINUM MO MASONRY OPENING 03 AREAS OF CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES MUST BE FULLY X2.0 EXISTING BASEMENT LEVEL PLAN ARCH ARCHITECT (URAL) MTL METAL RESOLVED WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT BEFORE BSMT BASEMENT MAX MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION CONTINUES IN THOSE AREAS. X2.1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BLOCKING BRG BVL BEARING BEVELED MAX MC MECHANICAL) MEDICINE CABINET 04 PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR FACE OF CONCRETE, X2.2 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN BIT BITUMINUOUS MEM MEMBRANE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SECTION AND ELEVATION DIMENSIONS ARE BLK BLOCK M METER (S) TO TOP OF CONCRETE, TOP OF PLYWOOD, OR TOP OF WALL PLATES OR X2.3 EXISTING THIRD FLOOR PLAN GYPSUM BOARD BLKG BOT BLOCKING BOTTOM MM MIN MILLIMETER (S) MINIMUM BEAMS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. A1.1 FIRST FLOOR DEMO PLAN y, CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT Ll BLDG BUILDING MIR MIRROR 05 PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BLOCKING IN STUD WALLS AND CEILINGS. A1.2 SECOND FLOOR DEMO PLAN CPT CARPET (ED) MISC MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CEILING AND WALL CSMT CASEMENT MULL MULLION MOUNTED FIXTURES, TOILETS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, CABINETRY, /� A2.1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN BATT INSULATION C CAULK (ING) NAT NATURAL COUNTERTOPS, SHELVES AND CLOSET RODS. CLG CEILING NR NOISE REDUCTION A2'2 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN CT CERAMIC TILE NOM NOMINAL 06 O DENOTES DOORS. REFER TO FLOOR PLANS FOR LOCATIONS. REFER CLR CLEAR NIC NOT IN CONTRACT TO DOOR SCHEDULE FOR DOOR TYPES. X3.1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION RIGID INSULATION COL COLUMN NTS NOT TO SCALE - CONC CONCRETE OPG OPENING 07 O DENOTES WINDOWS. REFER TO WINDOWS AND FLOOR PLANS FOR X3.2 EXISTING NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT OPP OPPOSITE LOCATIONS. REFER TO WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR WINDOW TYPES. STEEL /METAL AS NOTED CONST CONT CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS OPH OH OPPOSITE HAND OVERHEAD X3.3 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 10 CJT CONTROL JOINT PR PAIR A3.1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION CPR COPPER PK PARKING 08 COORDINATE ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL FIXTURES TO FIT CUST CUSTOM PVMT PAVEMENT WITHIN CEILING, FLOOR AND WALLS SPACES. VERIFY LOCATIONS WITH A3.2 PROPOSED NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS CARPET " " " " " " " " " " "" DT DRAPERY TROUGH PL PLASTIC LAMINATE ARCHITECT. A3.3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 111111111 DTL DETAIL PT POINT DIM DIMENSION PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT 09 IN THE EVENT THAT ADDITIONAL DETAILS OR GUIDANCE IS NEEDED BY DR DOOR PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH THE CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY ASPECTS OF THIS - DRW DRAWING PL PROPERTY LINE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN QT QUARRY TILE ARCHITECT. ELEC ELECTRIC (AL) REF REFERENCE M 1 1 EL ELEVATION (S) REF REFRIGERATOR ELEV ELEVATOR REIN REINFORCE (D), (ING) 10 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SATISFYING ALL r A4.00 A4.00 EQ EQUAL REQ REQUIRED APPLICABLE CODES AND OBTAINING ALL PERMITS AND REQUIRED EXH EXHAUST REQ RESILIENT APPROVALS. THIS PROJECT IS GOVERNED BY THE INTERNATIONAL EXTG EXISTING REV REVISION (D), (ING) BUILDING CODE, 2003 EDITION. CODE COMPLIANCE IS BUILDING SECTION REFERENCE ELEVATION REFERENCE EXT EXTERIOR REV REVERSE MANDATORY. THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT PERMIT Q FOC FACE OF CONCRETE RH RIGHT HAND WORK THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO ALL RELEVANT CODES Q FOF FACE OF FINISH R RISER INCLUDING IBC AND ALL LOCAL AND REGIONAL CODES. 0 FOM FACE OF MASONRY R &S ROD AND SHELF O FOS FACE OF STUDS RD ROOF DRAIN 11 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD COORDINATE AND OBTAIN J 1 1 FIN FFE FINISH (ED) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION RDT RFG RECESSED DRAPERY TRACK ROOFING APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT & ENGINEER BEFORE ANY CUTTING, NOTCHING OR DRILLING OF ANY CAST -IN -PLACE O A4.00 A4.00 RM ROOM FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER CONCRETE, STEEL FRAMING, OR ANY OTHER STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION RO ROUGH OPENING WHICH MAY AFFECT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. FHC FIRE HOSE CONNECTION R/S ROUGH SAWN UJ DETAIL REFERENCE DETAIL REFERENCE FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET S SEALANT (EXTERIOR) R FP FIREPLACE SHTG SHEATHING ' FPS FIREPROOFING, SPRAYED SHH SHOWER HEAD 12 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING GRADES AND STAKE MAIN 1 FLG FLASHING SHC SHOWER CONTROLS OUT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR OWNER AND ARCHITECT UJ OIL 100' -01, A4.00 FLR FLOOR (ING) SM SHEET METAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY SITE WORK. I­ FD FLOOR DRAIN SIM SIMILAR W FTG FOOTING SC SOLID CORE 13 IT IS THE INTENT AND MEANING OF THESE DOCUMENTS THAT THE W HEIGHT REFERENCE SECTION REFERENCE FND FOUNDATION SPEC SPECIFICATON (S) CONTRACTOR AND EACH SUBCONTRACTOR PROVIDE ALL LABOR, FBO FURNISHED BY OTHERS SQ SQUARE MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION, SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, ETC. TO OBTAIN FPHB FREEZE PROOF HOSE BIB STD STANDARD A COMPLETE JOB WITHIN THE RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF THE y FUR FURRED (ING) ST STAIN INDUSTRY. GA GAGE, GAUGE STL STEEL J ROOM NAME GALV GALVANIZED SD STORM DRAIN 14 ALL BUILDINGS TO FIT WITHIN PROPERTY LINES WITHOUT CROSSING GC GL GENERAL CONTRACT (OR) GLASS, GLAZING STIR TEL STRUCTURAL TELEPHONE EASEMENTS OR SETBACKS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. Q GYP GYPSUM BOARD TV TELEVISION REVISION REFERENCE ROOM NAME HB HOSE BIB THR THRESHOLD 15 PROVIDE ACCESS PANEL TO MOTOR FOR ALL WHIRLPOOL -TYPE TUBS. HDW HARDWARE T &G TONGUE AND GROOVE COORDINATE ACCESS LOCATIONS WITH INTERIOR DESIGNER AND HDR HEADER TOS TOP OF SLAB ARCHITECT TO PROVIDE INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION. HTG HEATING TOS TOP OF STEEL GRID W11 HVAC HT HEATING /VENTILATING /AC HEIGHT TOW TB TOP OF WALL TOWEL BAR HC HOLLOW CORE TR T TRANSOM TREAD PROJECT SUMMARY: HM HOLLOW METAL GRID BUBBLE WALL TYPE REFERENCE HOR HWH HORIZONTAL HOT WATER HEATER TYP UNO TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE Code: INCL INCLUDE (D), (ING) VB VAPOR BARRIER International Building Code 2009 1 ID INSIDE DIAMETER VIF VERIFY IN FIELD CONSTRUCTION TYPE: III B IBC INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR VERT VERTICAL OCCUPANCY: MIXED -USE (R2 AND M) A8.1 z 4 11 IBO I0 NS INSTALLED BY OWNER INSULATE (D), (ION) VCT WC VINYL COMPOSITION WATER CLOSET 3 INT JC INTERIOR JANITOR'S CLOSET WP WWF WATER PROOFING WELDED WIRE FABRIC KIT KITCHEN W WIDTH, WIDE INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE WINDOW TAG LAM LAMINATE (D) WDW WINDOW LAV LAVATORY WO WITHOUT LH LEFT HAND WD WOOD 33 STN - -/ TILE DOOR TAG MATERIAL BREAK ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 COPY RIGHT RESERVATION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 The drawings, specifications and other documents REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 prepared by the Architect (Michael Suman Architect, LLC) for this project are instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this Project and, unless otherwise provided in writing, the Architect shall be deemed the sole and exclusive author of these documents and shall retain, without limitation, all common law, statutory and other reversed rights, including the copyright hereof. No person, whether having come rightly into possession hereof or otherwise, 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. shall employ these documents on any other project, nor © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. for additions to this Project nor for the completion of this SCALE: 114 "= 1' -0" Project by others, unless with the prior express written consent of the Architect and upon appropriate DRAINN: MDS compensation to the Architect in an amount and kind satisfactory to the Architect. The Architect expressly claims all proprietary rights in the material which is issued PROJECT#: 1208 in confidence for design and /or construction purposes of SHEET TITLE: COVER SHEET this Project as noted. These materials may not be copied, modified, nor employed in any way without the specific prior written consent and permission of the Architect. © 2013 Michael Suman Architect, LLC. All rights reserved. AOsO NORTH WING THE LODGE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS (CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED B217, P531) LODGE SUBDIVISION VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING (REC. NO. 872294) 41199 HIGHWAY 6 & 24, EAGLE —VAIL P.O. BOX 1230 EDWARDS, CO. 81632 (970)949 -1406 A= 02'34' 46" R= 582.79' L= 26.24' T= 13.12' BRG= N88.33'37 "E C LEN = 26.23' 65: 65 � \ .8 DRIVE (40' R•O.W.) GORE CREEK rrl-o-� SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED (REC. NO. 200817444) BUILDIN( OUTLINE LOTS b & c BLOCK 5 —C ENTRY 69.4 VAIL VILLAGE _----FIRST FILING (13188, P551) PLANTED AREA SHADED 181.50'37 "E 1.99' 69.5 ENTRY THE BRIDGE STREET CONDOMINIUMS BAY WINDOW (TYPICAL) V1 l Cook S88.39'29 "W 2.02' BUILDING OUTLINE ENTRY x 68.3 LOT 1 A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT a & PART OF LOT c, BLOCK 5 —C VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING (REC. NO. 199794) S 11'07'00 "E 10.76' -� PLANTED AREA SHADED PLAZA LODGE CONDOMINIUMS F-- (I- F-- NI n DECK ---- - - - - -- BUILDING OVERHANG WOOD FENCE ® UTILITY MANHOLE 0 VENTPIPE HH UTILITY HANDHOLE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT .' ELECTRIC OUTLET ELECTRIC SWITCHES D ® STORM DRAINS WATER STAND PIPE D4 SPRINKLER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT TVHH CABLE TV HANDHOLE D CABLE TV PEDESTAL DQ GAS VALVE LIGHT /LIGHT POLE DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE W/ APPROX. TRUNK DIAMETER x.x' SCALE 1"=10' NOTES: 1) DATE OF SURVEY: 4/18/13 2) SURVEYOR HAS MADE NO INVESTIGATION OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR AMENDED PLATS, EASEMENTS OF RECORD (OTHER THAN PLATTED), ENCUMBRANCES, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, OWNERSHIP TITLE EVIDENCE, OR ANY OTHER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND CURRENT TITLE SEARCH MAY DISCLOSE. 3) NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 4) THIS SURVEY AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREON IS THE PROPERTY OF EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING, INC. AND IS INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE ORIGINAL CLIENT ONLY. ANY USE OF OR TRANSFER TO OTHERS IS PROHIBITED. 5) BASIS OF PROPERTY LINE LOCATION: MONUMENTS FOUND ON LOT. 6) BASIS OF ELEVATION: NGS CONTROL POINT "SPRADDLE" ELEVATION = 8287' (NAVD88) 7) BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION IS NOT PLATTED. PRIOR TO ANY DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY, TOWN OF VAIL SHOULD BE CONTACTED FOR CORRECT BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Michael J. Post, a Professional Land Surveyor registered under the laws of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that this topographic survey was made by me and under my supervision, and that the survey is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. Michael J. Post Colorado P.L.S. 30116 Date: M O N N o � n Sw di CG DRIVE (4D R.O.W.) RE CREEK I an INFILIED ` _ l - — ......... NEW pOLONNADE 1 LEGEND ' I -- - - - - -- DECK BUILDING OVERHANG o IE ".11 — — WOOD FENCE I VENTPIPE W CONC. LOTS b & C HH UTILITY HANDHOLE _ ' e rn WALK BLOCK 5-C I UTILITY PEDESTAL 1 1 VAIL VILLAGE I FIRST FILING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER 1 1 1� � EXIS11N0 pLANURED ELECTRIC OUTLET BE RECpNFIG T o I WATER STAND PIPE 1 I I III 1 II III I I - I © CABLE TV PEDESTAL 0.7' - STEPS Illllill 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 GAS VALVE LIGHT /LIGHT POLE 1 _ - I I 1 EW INFILLED CpLONNADE DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE W/ APPROX. TRUNK DIAMETER = I X. x' 1 I - I _ lrx.x, DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE W/ APPROX. TRUNK DIAMETER —LAZIER—ARCADE I I II - CONDOMINIM BUILDING I I - 0.1676 ACRES I II NORTH WING 0.6'( THE LODGE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS (CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED B I _ = I II I SITE PLAN — — — _ I 0.7 II I A0.1 SCALE: 1 of — 1'-011 ul 1 II � —I_ � NEW INFILLED I r I I - CpLONNAD I I I a oc _ - 0.7' I -- o 1 1 0' 10 20' 30' WOOD FENCE I, I SCALE 1`10' a 1 PAVER �- CONC PEDESTRIAN W MALL uj 0.3' 1 1 ENc? Op\ MENT AREA W LODGE SUBDIVISION ON TOWN OFVAIL VAIL VILLAGE 1 pRppER1y FIRST FILING 09, 1 H (REC. NO. 872294) J 1 NEW LANpSGApE a AREA REA = _ NEW INFILL AF SITE co RAMP 1 /, O 2,2g Sp. F1. _v F ST� 0.6' S79 °29'44 "W BUILDING ENTRY 40.00' T���� LOT I oU ILINE A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 0 & PART OF LOT c, a. PET WALL BLOCK 5—C VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING (REC. NO. 199794) SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED OUITLINE (REC. NO. 200817444) ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: I"= 10' -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN o � n :4 0% Sw 4i CG y O � .y ^' CAI r7 r CID O a O J O L.C.E. V STAIRS J UNIT 1 a L.C.E. STORAGE UNIT 1 uj BELOW STAIRS W UNIT 1 875 SQ. FT. N J J a UP L.C.E. STAIRS UNIT 1 I I I I I 15.7' 8.2' tT 106 o I I I I I I I � BASEMENT ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 1 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 X2.O SCALE: /4" - ' -Q" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 114" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #: 1208 SHEET TITLE. FLOOR PLAN X2jF0 C) 0 1 co o' S 1 1007 O0 49.79 S 1 1007'00"E 51.24 :i 0� Sw III • ` O Er Obi III •• W�© • • �. CAI r7 III III HH El Li Ll z BAY WINDOW 1 � I BAY - I I WINDOW N I II REPLACEMENT DIVIDING M WALL 102/103 I I / r II II L o 1 II Q Z � \ II I I j p RETAIL UNIT 102 I I I I RETAIL UNIT 103 V O II D J 1,105 SQ. FT. 1,472 SQ. FT. R BUILDING ENTRY I I 0 C.E. 5.9' 7.8' II 5.0' I I STAIR TWO W W I I 0 C.E. STAIRS STAIR ONE o "' I I UP DN RETAIL H 0 I I I I I UNIT 104 0 � u P I I I 566 SQ. FT. STAIRS 4 I I I FROM I I I BELOW I II I I I I C6 od I I I RETAIL UNIT 101 I I I I I D 659 SQ. FT. I I 10.8' I I o Li L.C.E. STORAGE ELECTRICAL ROOM L.C.E. STORAGE STORAGE L.C.E. RD ,- _ / UNIT 102 103 9 C.E. UTILITY Li 9 rn ILI I 23. ' 21.9' I GAS ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 ° — —— — — —— ———————————————— — ——�— — PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN X2.1 SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN X2m I o � n :4 0% Sw 4i CG y O � .y ^' CAI r7 0.4' 0.4' 0.4' 0.4' OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE UNIT 240 UNIT 200 UNIT 210 UNIT 220 UNIT 230 0 0 0 317 SQ. FT. 7 SQ. FT. 581 SQ. FT. 229 SQ. FT. 237 SQ. FT. 265 SQ. FT. UNIT 204 UNI 206 7 SQ. FT. W L.C.E. THIRD FLOOR STAIRS r CID 0.7 L.C.E. Q DECK o OFFICE UNIT 255 UNIT 255 0 O 06; _ 290 -SQ. FT. _ v UNIT 202 5.3' LLI 31 SQ. FT. I 0.4' HALLWAY C.E. L.C.E. HALL UP DN 0.8' R > - UNITS 200 -255 W W o � N DN o y RESTROOM RESTROOM Q ONE TWO D D OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE UNIT 205 UNIT 225 UNIT 235 UNIT 245 C.E. STAIRS � � � � 420 SQ. FT. 240 SQ. FT. 194 SQ. FT. 276 SQ. FT. 0.5' OFFICE MECHANICAL p 5- - 0�4' UNIT 250 0 L.C.E. ROOM _ _ _ DECK 0 0,4, 401 SQ. FT. UNIT 250 C.E. STAIRS .8 ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 1 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 42 13 X2,2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -10" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4 "= 1' -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #.. 1208 SHEET TITLE. FLOOR PLAN X2,F2 o � n :4 0% Sw 4i CG y O � .y ' .�. CAI r7 UNIT 302 UNIT 304 UNIT 306 UNIT 308 D D D D r a 0 J O HALLWAY D J UP DN ; uj W uj N UNIT 309 N D J FEE J a UNIT 301 UNIT 303 UNIT 305 UNIT 307 D D D D C.E. STAIRS I ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 1 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 X2.2 SCALE: 1/4° = V -0° DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 114" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #: 1208 SHEET TITLE. FLOOR PLAN X2,F3 - 1 1 SIEMENS 0, Sw 49 dS CG III • ` O Er III •• W • • Z REMOVE EXISTING PLANTER PERIMETER AND PREPARE I I I FOR RECONFIGURED EDGE I I \ \\ HH -- - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- - --------------- - - -T� ___ Tr „ ❑ _____ _____ ❑ F-1 I J ❑ L J LI ❑ _ t ` REMOVE ALL AREAS OF BRICK VENEER AND PREP AREAS F OR NEW STONE REMOVE STRUCTURAL VENEER COLUMN AND FINISHES I I I I REMOVE EXISTING WALL I — SECTIONS, BAY WINDOWS, p DOORS, TRIM, ETC. PREP N / FOR NEW ENCLOSURE REMOVE EXISTING I ATTACHED STRUCTURE: ALL I WALLS AND ROOF. PREP � I I I I � N --I— -- I--I�— N ______________ �" , - - - -- - - - - -� _ N r , 1 N 'r------ - - - - -�_.[F-17 ____________ � �� ------ - - - - -- �� \ I AREA FOR NEW INFILL STRUCTURE— �— — � L�_L___ ____ __ —_ —�_ —_�� I -__ - -_ - - - - - -- -- � - - - -- - - - - -1— -'i REMOVE EXISTING WALL SECTIONS, WOOD 000, N __-- _- _ I CLADDING, AWNING, Al D I M ICI I I I I `� APPLIED GABLE FORMS. — rr-II II 11 111 — ------------------------- �� ------- _ - - - - -- N IIII I I I I I II II II II I I I I I I I ,I I I/ ^ / � vm III REMOVE EXISTING WOOD -►I I I I I I I —____ PIPE ENCLOSURE AND PREP I I I AREA FOR NEW STONE I I I I I I I I I I I N _!___ ____ N _ LJ LJ Q cc WALL ENCLOSURE I I I O H I I I I ICI I I I A N I I I I I I I O III I I I RETAIL u \ NIT 1 2 I I I I RETAIL NIT 103 1 I I V •• — -- - - � REMOVE EXISTING ENTRY � WALL AND DOOR SYSTEM. I I I I 0.4, � REMOVE EXISTING WALL S J Q PREP FOR NEW IN ILL 1 105 SQ. FT. I I 1 472 SQ. FT. AND PREP FOR NEW SYSTEM i i i i ENCLOSURE BENTUILDING 5.9' 7 8 7.8' STAIR I ~ W -10 5 o I I TWO W I I STAIR ONE � I I I I I IJc' DN RETAIL I UNIT 104 I I H H J - - - - -, j REMOVE EXISTING I I I I I Q DEMISING WALL PREPARE EXTERIOR STAIR I - - - -- - - - -- I I I I AREA TO BE CAPPED BY NEW RETAIL ABOVE. NO LONGER REQUIRE BY III I - - - -- I I I I I I I I CODE l I II II I REMOVE EXISTING ENTRY OSTEM. I - - - -- - - - -- REMOVE EXISTING STAIR - - - -- I I I I N - III III I REP FOR NEW SYSTEM FINISH AND GUARDRAILS. — -- - - - -- PREP FOR NEW DESIGN oo o0 I I I RETAIL I UNIT 101 — — — — — — — — — — II II 1 I � I I I I I I - - - -- - - - -- I I I I II II I � I II - - - -- - - - -- 10.8' I III III I I I ____-- - - - - -- REMOVE EXISTING __---- - - - - -- DEMISING WALL I I REMOVE EXISTING I I I IDOOR AND PREP FOR II INFILL II _ I o CV ``' II I I II III I11 I ------ - - - - -- ________ —_- r-- - - - - -- r--- 11 1 — II I REMOVE EXISTING FRAME LECTRICAL \ N ROOM STORAGE �� ROOM WALL AND DOOR AND PREP FOR STOREFRONT '.6 0.9 Lji I I -- — J I INFILL I I Ll L-------------- ------------ - - - - -- -- - - -r -- 273 r 1.9 -- - - - - -- ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 — —— — — —— —— — —_ — —— ——————— — t — — -4. — — PEC APPLICATION 211.13 - - -- - - -- REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 REMOVE SLAB AREA AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 PREP FOR NEW SOFTSCAPE i FIRST FLOOR DEMO PLAN ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" DRAINN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: DEMO PLAN IF o � n -4 0% Sw di CG y O � .y W REMOVE EXISTING WALL SECTIONS AND WINDOWS. PREP FOR NEW WINDOW GROUPS —�— sss sss - - - -- ss sss - - - -- sss - �__----==-- z- - -a-_- ==- �- n- --�-__ __- --- --�__- — sss - -- - a__ -�- -- FE�, FE� Fri - REMOVE ALL AREAS OF LJ BRICK VENEER AND PREP AREAS FOR NEW STONE VENEER REMOVE EXISTING -� DEMISING WALL AS SHOWN- TYPICAL I I II II II REMOVE EXISTING -110.4' 0.4'0.4' II � EXTERIOR WALL -------------- - - - - -- I I I I I I OFFICE I I OFFICE I I OFFICE I I I I OFFICE 0.4' OFFICE UNIT 240 III UNIT 200 I I UNIT 210 I I UNIT 220 IIII 0 I I 0 I I I I UNIT 230 11 0 0 317 SQ. FT. 7 SQ. FT. I I IIII 581 SQ. FT. I I 229 SQ. FT. I I 237 SQ. FT. � II II I I 265 SQ. FT. II - I I UNIT 200 I I I I I I I I REMOVE EXISTING SHED ROOF AND PREP FOR I UNIT 204 I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I UNIT 20 NEW FLOOR EXTENSION I 7 SQ. FT. � I I I I II II II r � I I I I I I II II I I II II II II � -- ir -J II II REMOVE EXISTING WALLS II 07 Q AND DOORS OF STORAGE O CLOSET AND OFFICE ENTRY I I I I � ` II II II I I II OFFICE UNIT CE O J 6 V UNIT 202 5.3' 1 290 SQ. FT. � 31 SQ. FT. I 0.4' I UP DN 0.8' ; CORRIDOR D REMOVE EXISTING STAIRS AND PREP FOR NEW I DESIGN W W p ~ o H - - -- r- - - -- � o J a ---- - - - - -- RESTROOM RESTROOM ONE TWO - - - - -1 r - - - -- D D - - - - -4 1 - - - - -- OFFICE - - - -- - -- 0.6' OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE UNIT 205 UNIT 225 UNIT 235 UNIT 245 j j 0.5' 240 SQ. FT. 194 SQ. FT. 276 SQ. FT. - - - - -A F - - - -- 0.5' ` ----- L1 - - - -- OFFICE \ \ MECHANICAL - 0.4' UNIT 250 ROOM °'S 0.4' 0 REMOVE WINDOW AND 0 401 SQ. FT. WALL SECTION. PREP 0.8' FOR LARGER GROUP REMOVE WINDOWS AND - -- WALL SECTION BETWEEN. __— PREP FOR LARGER GROUP -T---- - - - -- - -- L ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 SECOND FLOOR DEMO PLAN PECAPPLICATION 211.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.213 A1.2 SCALE: 1/4" = V -Q" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: DEMO PLAN A lm2 H I I o � n U � N 3� 0, di • W IE .y III C, W I I I EXISTING LANDSCAPE \ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE OUTLINE OUTLINE. AREA OF LANDSCAPE WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. \ I I I NEW SMOOTH STUCCO TO - -- REPLACE EXISTING BRICK VENEER AT COLUMNS - TYPICAL H - -- � NEW STOREFRONT AND ENTRY DOORS NEW STOREFRONT AND ENTRY DOOR NEW SMOOTH STUCCO TO H H I REPLACE EXISTING BRICK VENEER AT COLUMNS - TYPICAL 269 NEW 271 NEW ' r M NEW STOREFRONT AND ENTRY DOORS HATCHED A E EXISTING FDC TO EXTEND NEW EXPANSION AREA SQ. FT. NEW EXPANSION AREA SQ. FT. TO EN OF NEW ALL co 46 SQ. FT. ch NEW REGIONAL NEW STOREFRONT � STONE PAVING EXTENDS TO INTERIOR LOBBY AND E N C ROAC H M E N AND ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM 98 NEW UP INTERIOR STAIRS REDUCTION IIIIIIIIA M Q. . S FT V o NEW STOREFRONT �o 6". 14' -8" r 1 ' -8: %-- 8" SYSTEM NEW STOREFRONT NEW ENTRY DOOR AND I AND ENTRY DOORS WALL SYSTEM r NEW STOREFRONT 2N W 40 7' -10 %" 00 SYSTEM co SQ T A LOB Y _% oac Z H BUILDING o O LOBB RETAIL RETAIL V UNIT 102 UNIT 103 ❑ ❑ uj J 1 105 SQ. FT. 1472 SQ. FT. R NEW SMOOTH STUCCO NEW STONE PILASTER FLOOR FINISH S IR LLI W H lip DN RETAIL 202 � UNIT 104 NEW j a RETAIL SQ. FT. NEW STRUCTURAL COLUMN NEW EXPANSION AREA = SHADED 235 SQ. FT. ADDITION AREA= NEW STOREFRONT 228 SQ. FT. AND ENTRY DOORS ADDITIONAL ® SITE INFILL EXISTING DOOR OPENING COVERAGE ELECTRICAL STORAGE ;- I ROOM ROOM ❑ 0 Ll EXISTING GAS METER w DUMPSTER TO REMAIN EXISTING EGRESS ENCLOSURE E N REMAIN UP PATH TO REMAIN w W W y W w w w ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 dim y PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 NEW SOFTSCAPE HATCHED P RHO POS E D FIRST FLOOR P LAN TO REPLACE EXISTING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 1 i PAVEMENT AREA � REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 EXISTING FENCE TO A2.1 SCALE: 1 /4" = 1' -0" REMAIN GENERAL NOTES: 69 SQ. FT. ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 1. PLAN ELEVATIONS REFERENCE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 2. DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE ROUGH OPENING DIMS. U.O.N. ADDITIONAL COORDINATE INTERMEDIATE POST DIMS. WITH WINDOW MANUFACTURER ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS. LANDSCAPE 3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL WALL /FLOOR /ROOF SYSTEMS, AND MECHANICAL /ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ROUTING. MICHAEL S ARCHITECT, LLC. 4. SMOKE DETECTORS TO BE INTERCONNECTED PER IBC CODE - HARDWIRE 5. CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS TO BE INSTALLED PER IBC © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL D. 6. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, IF DIMENSIONS ARE IN CONFLICT OR DO NOT APPEAR SCALE: 114 "= 1' -0" DRAINN: MDS ON THE DRAWINGS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT. 7. ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS LOCATING PARTITIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR BLOCK WA, L FACE, U.N.O. 8. FINISH DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FINISH FACE AND NOTES "FIN" OR "CLR ". PROJECT#: 1208 9. REFER TO LIGHTING AND LOW VOLTAGE DRAWINGS FOR COORDINATION. SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN 10. COORDINATE BLOCKING FOR BATH HARDWARE WITH INTERIOR ELEVATIONS PARTITIION LEGEND: NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION o � n :4 0% 4i CG W O � .y ^' CAI r7 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 8' -0" 6-0" NEW WINDOW GROUPS 334 NEW THIS FACADE TYPICAL NEW STOREFRONT SYSTEM - AT EXPANSION AREA SQ. FT ■ OFFICE UNIT 240 NEW GUARDRAIL DESIGN TO MATCH EXISTING mi UNIT 206 EXISTING STORAGE - NEW EXPANSION AREA AREA ACCESSED FROM r BELOW OFFICE UNIT 200 -230 D a OFFICE O UNIT 255 ® J 0 NEW DRAIN I 13' -815/ " 13'-815/6' 13'- 815/6' 6' -47/$' J uj UNIT 202 T Q AND DOOR SYSTEM D > NEW STONE CORRIDOR FLOOR FINISH 0 NEW OFFICE LEVEL TERRACE W y DN J J a RESTROOM RESTROOM ONE TWO D D OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE UNIT 205 I D UNIT 225 UNIT 235 D D UNIT 245 D mi NEW DRAIN OFFICE UNIT 250 MECHANICAL D ROOM STAIR NEW STONE STAIR ONE FINISH AND OPEN ET-1 GUARDRAILS NEW TALLER WINDOW GROUP ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 A22 SCALE: 1/4" = V-0 -' REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 GENERAL NOTES: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 1. PLAN ELEVATIONS REFERENCE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 2. DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE ROUGH OPENING DIMS. U.O.N. COORDINATE INTERMEDIATE POST DIMS. WITH WINDOW MANUFACTURER ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL WALL /FLOOR /ROOF SYSTEMS, AND MECHANICAL /ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ROUTING. 4. SMOKE DETECTORS TO BE INTERCONNECTED PER IBC CODE - HARDWIRE 5. CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS TO BE INSTALLED PER IBC 6. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, IF DIMENSIONS ARE IN CONFLICT OR DO NOT APPEAR ON THE DRAWINGS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT. ALL MICHAEL S ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESEE RVERVE D. 7. ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS LOCATING PARTITIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR BLOCK WALL FACE, U.N.O. "FIN" "CLR ". SCALE: 114 "= V -0" 8. FINISH DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FINISH FACE AND NOTES OR DRAWN: MDS 9. REFER TO LIGHTING AND LOW VOLTAGE DRAWINGS FOR COORDINATION. 10. COORDINATE BLOCKING FOR BATH HARDWARE WITH INTERIOR ELEVATIONS PROJECTA 1208 PARTITION LEGEND: SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION A2m2 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" F] EXISTING WOOD SIDING mEXISTING STUCCO SIDING F3] EXISTING ROOF FINISH EXISTING BRICK VENEER SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' (3 Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O J O V J R I— W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT o � n REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 -4 0% 0� 0, L9 4i CG y O � .y ' .�. CAI r7 (3 Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O J O V J R I— W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 r�. 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #: 1208 SHEET TITLE. ELEVATIONS X3.1 SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' 4 SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' 4 FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' 4 ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' OL BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" EXISTING WOOD SIDING EXISTING STUCCO SIDING EXISTING ROOF FINISH mEXISTING BRICK VENEER El T � EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1' -0" SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' ENTRY LEVEL ,L BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' (3 Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O J O V J R I— W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT o � n REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 -4 0% L9 4i CG y O � .y ' CAI J (3 Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O J O V J R I— W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 r�. 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #: 1208 SHEET TITLE. ELEVATIONS X3,,2 o � n -4 0% Sw di CG y O � .y WGl PROPERTY LINE m ❑ ❑ LLIJ ji OL SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' M r 0 a oc 0 0 SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' 2 J UJ R F2] W LLI J IL FIRST FLOOR LEVEL _u EL: 8168.0' OL ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' I BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' EXISTING WEST ELEVATION X3.3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" ❑ EXISTING WOOD SIDING ❑ EXISTING STUCCO SIDING ITEXISTING ROOF FINISH ¢❑ EXISTING BRICK VENEER ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 ©2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 114" = V -0" DRAINN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE. ELEVATIONS X3m 3 PROPERTY LINE I IL y JI VI \LI I \VIII AND ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM -TYP. PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" aEXISTING WOOD SIDING -NEW STAIN COLOR aEXISTING STUCCO SIDING aEXISTING ROOF FINISH ¢❑ NEW SMOOTH STUCCO VENEER 5❑ NEW HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING -NEW STAIN COLOR 6❑ NEW METAL PANEL ONEW DOOR OR WINDOW GROUP GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS CLAD WOOD - COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 2) ALL FLASHING AND ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING 3) DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE NOMINAL. WINDOW REP. TO FIELD VERIFY ALL OPENINGS. 5) EXTERIOR LOUVERS /VENTS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISH :W OPEN METAL JARDRAIL DESIGN AT IS BALCONY SECOND FLOOR , EL: 8180.1' Y W WOOD TRIM BETWEEN :W WINDOWS- TYPICAL COND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' W BUILDING SIGNAGE EA W WOOD TRIM BETWEEN W WINDOWS- TYPICAL W STOREFRONT AND TRY DOOR SYSTEM FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' (3 Z J m LLI LLI H H J J Q Lii r O a O J O V J a W W In J J a 1 ISSUED FOR: DATE: 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 o � n � t` yUry 1 .-4 0% 0� 0, 49 di CG y O � rI Obi W C 4 r) �. CAI r7 (3 Z J m LLI LLI H H J J Q Lii r O a O J O V J a W W In J J a 1 ISSUED FOR: DATE: 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 1 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 1 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4 "= 1' -0" DRAINN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: ELEVATIONS A3.1 SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' 4 SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' 4 FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' 4 ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' OL BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' ND 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" EXISTING WOOD SIDING -NEW STAIN COLOR EXISTING STUCCO SIDING EXISTING ROOF FINISH NEW SMOOTH STUCCO VENEER ❑ NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING -NEW STAIN COLOR 6❑ NEW METAL PANEL ONEW DOOR OR WINDOW GROUP GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS CLAD WOOD - COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 2) ALL FLASHING AND ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING 3) DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE NOMINAL. WINDOW REP. TO FIELD VERIFY ALL OPENINGS. 5) EXTERIOR LOUVERS /VENTS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISH NEW WOOD TRIM BETWEEN NEW WINDOWS - TYPICAL NEW WOOD TRIM -TYP. NEW STOREFRONT SYSTEM O O O El O� O I10 O IO O \ Tlo O\ PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -O" SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' SECOND FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8180.1' NEW AWNING STOREFRONT INFILL SYSTEM FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' ENTRY LEVEL BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' Ll Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O mi O J R I- W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEG APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT o � n REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 :4 0% L9 4i CG y O � .y ' CAI J Ll Z J m I= LLI uj H H J J Q r O a O mi O J R I- W W N J J a ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PEG APPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 r�. 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 114" = V_0" DRAWN: MDS PROJECT #: 1208 SHEET TITLE. ELEVATIONS A3.2 4 SECOND FLOOR EL: 8180.1' o � n -4 0% Sw 49 di CG Z J 0 N to TM O D STAIR I O NEW GUARDRAIL J AT EXPANSION C SECOND FLOOR LEVEL TERRACE EDGE EL: 8180.1' 2 J W o W In \ J J OL / � Q FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' &1 ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" ❑ EXISTING WOOD SIDING -NEW STAIN COLOR EXISTING STUCCO SIDING P] EXISTING ROOF FINISH ¢� NEW SMOOTH STUCCO VENEER 5❑ NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING -NEW STAIN COLOR 6❑ NEW METAL PANEL ONEW DOOR OR WINDOW GROUP GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS CLAD WOOD - COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 2) ALL FLASHING AND ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING 3) DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE NOMINAL. WINDOW REP. TO FIELD VERIFY ALL OPENINGS. 5) EXTERIOR LOUVERS /VENTS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISH LI - LJl J J Q ISSUED FOR: DATE: T 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. O .y Obi 0 W Gl PROPERTY LINE Z J 0 N to TM O D STAIR I O NEW GUARDRAIL J AT EXPANSION C SECOND FLOOR LEVEL TERRACE EDGE EL: 8180.1' 2 J W o W In \ J J OL / � Q FIRST FLOOR LEVEL EL: 8168.0' &1 ENTRY LEVEL EL: 8166.0' BASEMENT LEVEL EL: 8159.9' PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" ❑ EXISTING WOOD SIDING -NEW STAIN COLOR EXISTING STUCCO SIDING P] EXISTING ROOF FINISH ¢� NEW SMOOTH STUCCO VENEER 5❑ NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING -NEW STAIN COLOR 6❑ NEW METAL PANEL ONEW DOOR OR WINDOW GROUP GENERAL NOTES: 1) ALL WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS CLAD WOOD - COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING 2) ALL FLASHING AND ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING 3) DIMENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE NOMINAL. WINDOW REP. TO FIELD VERIFY ALL OPENINGS. 5) EXTERIOR LOUVERS /VENTS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT FINISH LI - LJl J J Q ISSUED FOR: DATE: SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 PECAPPLICATION 2.11.13 REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 2013 MICHAEL SUMAN ARCHITECT, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. SCALE: 1/4 "= 1' -0" DRAINN: MDS PROJECT A: 1208 SHEET TITLE: ELEVATIONS A3.3 v N N O W SUMAN A R C" I T E C T 5 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING NORTHEAST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 9 i0 Al- 1 .f - i 22 v N N O W SUMAi? A'RC"ITECt 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage 2 PROPOSED NORTHEAST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C" I T E C T 5 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 Fm- I �I 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage 3 EXISTING EAST VIEW 970.471.6122 v N N O W SL. A R C �jr" I WIFE 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 5.7.13 Wall Street Bu SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage 4 PROPOSED EAST VIEW Vail, CO 81657 470 Z-71./-'J 22 N N O W 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage 5 EXISTING SOUTHEAST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 N N O W 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED SOUTHEAST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 N N O W SUMAN AR C H I T E C T 3 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage 7 EXISTING NORTH VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SL A R C: 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 D I� i 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED NORTH VIEW v N N O W SUMAN A R C" I T E C T 5 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING NORTHWEST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUS AR CH ;I 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 5.7.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED NORTHWEST VIEW 10 970.471.6122 M M "�,v Design Review Memorandum Project: Wall Street Building, Vail Village, Vail CO Date: March 4, 2013 Materials reviewed: Wall Street Building drawing set by Suman Architects PEC 130008 PEC 13009 Wall Street Building Variance Request PEC 120008 PEC 130009 Building and Model Images (3D perspectives) by Suman Architects Relevant Standards and Guidelines: Vail Village Master Plan Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Vail Village Master Plan Goal 1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. This goal suggests careful attention to the unique scale and character of Wall Street and always striving for high quality development. Policy 1.1.1: Development and improvement projects approved the Village shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outline in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. This policy supports this review. Policy 2.4.1: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network through the Village. This policy generally supports the proposed project. Objective 4.1:... Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. The arcade is one of the unique types of pedestrian experiences in the Village. If it is to be eliminated, it should be with development that contributes to the pedestrian experience. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan Urban Design Considerations 1. Pedestrian ization Filling in the ground floor module of the arcade on Gore Creek Drive cuts off views and a passageway for some, that entices people into Wall Street. Otherwise, not significantly affected. 2. Vehicle Penetration PLANNING • • TECHNOLOGY BERKELEY, DAVIS, FULLERTON, PASADENA & SAN DIEGO, CA EUGENE & PORTLAND, OR I BOULDER, CO Name Date Page 2 No significant impact. 3. Streetscape Framework The "22' reconfigured landscape" adjacent to the stairs is a significant loss of the informal character of the planting beds on Wall Street and should not be accepted. 4. Street Enclosure Does tend to narrow down the width of the pedestrian walkway, but the overall enclosure (upper part of the building) is not affected. 5. Street Edge Enclosing the two -story arcade on the corner of GCD removes a significant inset and landmark condition in the Village. We recommend not fully enclosing the Gore Creek Drive corner, but rather leaving at least a portion of the two -story space as a covered entry way and even pass- through. An alternative would be to at least not fill in the entire ground floor of this corner. Further south, the proposed fagade removes some of the variability of the street edge, but may have a beneficial effect of making those store fronts more visible. 6. Building Height No impact. 7. Views Slight impact on views of the stairwell at the south end of Wall Street. 8. Sun /shade No impact. Architectural Considerations Facades Materials Removing or covering the stucco on the central portion of the East View removes a significant presence of stucco in Wall Street —with no apparent benefit. We understand the challenge in trying to match the existing one -of -a -kind texture, if there were significant changes in the wall plane. However, in our opinion it is not essential to match it. In fact, the guidelines suggest flat stucco (see Color section) to avoid too many fanciful textures. In some places in the Village different textures, and colors, of stucco are juxtaposed next to each other. As long as the change occurs at a vertical change in plane (inside corner) it will give the impression of separate buildings, or an addition at a different time. The veneer stone material conveyed in the Schematic Design images suggests a very rectilinear, block -like character, rather than the more natural looking stone (rougher surface, not straight unbroken horizontal joints, greater variability in stone sizes) found elsewhere in the Village. 7/2/2013 Macintosh HD: Users :jtwinston:Documents:ACTIVE PROJECTS:Vail Design Review.-The Wall Street Building:Wall Street DeSRevMeml.docx Name Date Page 3 Lastly with regard to materials, one of the objectives for the Village is to maintain the adapted image of a "quaint European alpine village." One of the ways that is accomplished is to use materials in a traditional way. For example, stone would typically be used as a foundation, or a short wall below a wall of lighter material (stucco, wood). Often, larger stones would be used as a base, with smaller stones as the wall or column rises. Stone columns would often also have a wider base. Stone masonry would not be used over an opening except as an arch or over a very strong, short lintel. The way the stone veneer is proposed to be used in this project is not consistent with any of these general conventions. The tall, slender stone columns, the stone above long lintels over the windows (and no lintel over the corner infill) will clearly give a "false stone" appearance. Colors The intent of the color guideline is to "provide greater latitude in the use of color in Vail Village in or der to create visual interest and enliven the area." Shifting from a warm brown siding to a more gray siding has the opposite effect. Similarly, the somber color of the stone also takes away some of the vitality of the building. Transparency A high % of ground level transparency is maintained, in fact too high. The large, continuous, typical commercial glass storefront system is exactly what the guidelines intend to discourage. Windows The ground floor windows shown appear to be a metal -clad commercial storefront system. Missing elements suggested in the guidelines include: • Solid knee wall below the windows • A significant portion of building wall (wider than the column widths shown) that breaks the windows into discrete grouped segments • Separate doorways • Within an overall band of windows, wood members that divide the windows into vertically proportioned windows. • Mullions that further subdivide the windows into smaller panes The second floor windows appear to be a continuous box - window extension virtually the length of the east - facing fagade. This is inconsistent with several of the guidelines: • The upper floors should be predominantly solid (building wall), punctured by windows. • Avoid extensive horizontal repetition • Avoid long continuous glass areas 7/2/2013 Macintosh HD: Users :jtwinston:Documents:ACTIVE PROJECTS:Vail Design Review.-The Wall Street Building:Wall Street DeSRevMemI.docx Name Date Page 4 • Bay, bow, and box window extensions are consistent with the guidelines, but as individual elements rather than a long, continuous mass. Doors The doors shown in the Schematic Design also appear to be the doors specifically discouraged in the Guidelines —metal clad with large single pane windows. Many other door options are suggested in the guidelines. Also, not reflected is any sense of a covered entry for doorways —a strong lintel, recess, or even a canopy. The canopy over the doorway for Wild Bill's is missing an opportunity to call more attention to itself. Trim There is a broad lintel above the window systems on the ground floor, but no indication of wide wood trim that is characteristic of the Village and strongly encouraged in the guidelines. Signage The applicant is missing an opportunity to do creative signage, such as wall graphics on stucco, signs that extend perpendicular to the building. Discussion: This building was one of the early buildings in Vail, built before the Design Guidelines were created. Therefore there are aspects of the existing building are not consistent with the Guidelines (e.g. box balconies, windows without wide trim, etc.). Obviously, if some portions of the building are not modified, they will still be inconsistent with the Guidelines. That being said however, there are significant aspects of the proposed improvements that are not consistent with the guidelines, especially the Architectural Guidelines. While we generally support the concept of filling in a significant portion of the arcade, accepting this proposal in its current form would have a significant negative impact on the character of one of the charming passageways in Vail Village. 7/2/2013 Macintosh HD: Users :jtwinston:Documents:ACTIVE PROJECTS:Vail Design Review.-The Wall Street Building:Wall Street DeSRevMemI.docx gin. W Design Review Memorandum Project: Wall Street Building, Vail Village, Vail CO Date: March 26, 2013 This memorandum builds on the March 4 memorandum, and is pursuant to a site visit with the applicant. The proposed building infill is generally consistent with the guidelines, with several reservations and suggestions: RN 9 Given the gradually descending grade of Wall Street to the north, filling in the second floor of the corner module, as proposed, will still leave a generous ground floor height. The second floor area can obviously be put to better use than it is currently. Filling in the ground floor entirely out to the NE corner column cuts off a minor "cut - through", but the more significant concern is that it closes off views of Wall Street that attract pedestrians in, and allow the space to flow naturally. More consistent with the guidelines would be to expand the ground floor out to a diagonal fagade that extends from the existing corner column of the Emporium shop, to the second column south on Wall Street. In addition to allowing the pedestrian space to flow around the building, the diagonal fagade would be visible to a greater area. Filling in the rest of the arcade along Wall Street will remove an interesting and somewhat unique feature in Vail (not very many arcades), but will make the windows more visible and the stores somewhat more accessible. The negative aspect of this infill is that it removes an area that is now heavily used for outdoor displays. If the displays are then moved into Wall Street, there will be a significant narrowing of the corridor. Since the Wall Street Building property apparently extends about 3' beyond the column line, this would be legally possible. As a condition PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY 7/2/2013 Wall Street Building Design Review Memorandum 2 March 28, 2013 Page 2 M of expansion, the Town may wish to consider being granted an easement over the additional property so that it's use can be regulated appropriately. The ground floor windows that fill in the arcade appear to be a metal -clad commercial storefront system. A stroll around Vail Village reveals that there are a number of installations that differ from the guidelines, and in fact have metal frames, and large windows. The difference however, is two key features of these Vail Village applications: a. most of these installations are embedded in a wall rather than - �r continuous windows separated by '+ narrow columns (that is, there is a more significant amount of wall separating the windows than in the Wall St. Bldg proposal). b. the frames make either square or verticle rectangle patterns (not the horizontal rectangles in the proposal). 4 r t y Y' E To be consistent with the guidelines the vertical columns should be made wider, and the horizontal stucco beam should be made thicker (vertical dimension) to give more of a sense of a solid, load- bearing building wall, into which windows have been inserted. 7/2/2013 Wall Street Building Design Review Memorandum 2 March 28, 2013 Page 3 5. With regard to the second floor of the corner, the narrow stucco beam and columns also give a modern, non -Vail Village, character. The use of storefront windows on the second floor are not consistent with the guidelines, and are not even actually practical. (In contemporary glass -wall buildings, office uses usually dictate putting desks or filing cabinets next to the windows, which gives an unsightly appearance —or opaque glass is used — neither of which is desired here.) An approach more consistent with the guidelines would be: smaller windows inserted into a solid wall (e.g. wider horizontal stucco beam, wider columns, solid wall between banks of windows, taller wall beneath the windows. (The windows could even be bay windows for interest.) 6. The proposed fagade for the Jewels of the West, with the horizontal rectangle windows, isn't consistent with any of the guidelines, or the discussion above, and has modern, almost Japanese quality. To be consistent with the guidelines suggests: window panes that are square or vertically proportioned rectangles, at least a small amount of solid i building wall separating windows, and /or at least wide columns framing the door, and a pitched or awning overhand. 7/2/2013 40M MID IMEM MID MOO 40M GREW MID SEND HH_ N -- � N H 0� f 49 co M Cy 0 IIICV op 0 W v u - cn n M Z EXISTING LANDSCAPE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE I I I OUTLINE OUTLINE. AREA OF LANDSCAPE WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED. I I I NEW SMOOTH STUCCO TO MEN - - -- Mml Min 'EM MIS 'EM 'EM MEI mis MR MIR MID MIN REPLACE EXISTING BRICK VENEER AT COLUMNS - ' TYPICAL � __ _ NEW STOREFRONT AND ENTRY DOORS ' / NEW STOREFRONT AND ENTRY DOOR / _ i NEW SMOOTH STUCCO TO ------------ _ - - _ - j �'1 I REPLACE EXISTING BRICK VENEER AT COLUMNS - TYPICAL 1 ' -63/4 � 7' -0" - -- - -- 269 E W 271 NEW o - EXISTING FDC TO EXTEND M NEW EXPANSION AREA SQ. T. NEW EXPANSION AREA SQ. FT. AND ENTRY DOORS HATCHED A E TO EN OF NEW ALL 6 SQ FT. NEW REGIONAL NEW STOREFRONT STONE PAVING EXTENDS TO INTERIOR LOBBY AND E N C BOAC H M E N AND ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM 98 NEW UP INTERIOR STAIRS REDUCTION m SQ. FT. ° NEW STOREFRONT i — � b" 14 -8 3 1 -8 /4' 8 SYSTEM i I NEW STOREFRONT NEW ENTRY DOOR AND ' AND ENTRY DOORS 0 � WALL SYSTEM NEW STOREFRONT 2 NEW 7' -10%" r Co SYSTEM o0 SQ FT A 0 0 O B Y oac z Z BUILDING o LOBBY RETAIL RETAIL V UNIT 102 UNIT 103 •• -- - - - - -- D D J 1 105 SQ. FT. 1472 SQ. FT. a NEW SMOOTH STUCCO NEW STONE PILASTER FLOOR FINISH Lu F-I STAIR W N b UP DN RETAIL 262 y UNIT 104 J o NEW UP a SQ. FT. 3 UNITA1I01 D NEW STRUCTURAL COLUMN NEW EXPANSION AREA —SHADED 235 SQ. FT. ADDITION AREA= NEW STOREFRONT 228 SQ. FT' AND ENTRY DOORS ADDITIONAL INFILL EXISTING SITE DOOR OPENING I � COVERAGE ELECTRICAL STORAGE I ROOM ROOM H 0 I EXISTING GAS METER TO REMAIN \ W W W W y b'- 10`/8' W W DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN UP \ EXISTING EGRESS PATH TO REMAIN W W W W W W W W W ISSUED FOR: DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN 12.13.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —T�� J y y W W y y y` W y y W W y W PEC APPLICATION 2.11.13 W W W W NEW SOFTSCAPE HATCHED REVISED PEC APP. 4.2.13 PR POSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN TO REPLACE EXISTING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4.15.13 REVISED PEC APP. 5.7.13 PAVEMENT AREA EXISTING FENCE TO A2.1 SCALE: /4" = 1' -0" REMAIN I GENERAL NOTES: 69 SQ. FT. ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 1. PLAN ELEVATIONS REFERENCE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 2. DIN ENSIONED WALL OPENINGS ARE ROUGH OPENING DIMS. U.O.N. ADDITIONAL COORDINATE INTERMEDIATE POST DIMS. WITH WINDOW MA UFACTURER ROUGH OPENING DIMENSIONS. LANDSCAPE 3. CO TRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL WALL /FLOOR /ROOF SYSTEMS, AND ME HANICAL /ELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ROUTING. 4. SM KE DETECTORS TO BE INTERCONNECTED PER IBC CODE - HARDWIRE ARCHITECT, © ALL MICHAEL S RESERVED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. LLC. 5. CA BON MONOXIDE DETECTORS TO BE INSTALLED PER IBC SCALE: 114 "= 1' -0" b. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, IF DIMENSIONS ARE IN CONFLICT OR DO NOT APPEAR DRAWN: MDS ON THE DRAWINGS, NOTIFY ARCHITECT. 7. ALL PLAN DIMENSIONS LOCATING PARTITIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR BLOCK WALL FACE, U.N.O. 8. FINISH DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FINISH FACE AND NOTES "FIN" OR "CLR ". PROJECTA' 1208 9. REFER TO LIGHTING AND LOW VOLTAGE DRAWINGS FOR COORDINATION. 10. COORDINATE BLOCKING FOR BATH HARDWARE WITH INTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN PARTI ION LEGEND: NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION EXISTING WALL CONSTRUCTION v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING NORTHEAST VIEW r'i r v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED NORTHEAST VIEW `a 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 5.13.13 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING EAST VIEW 107 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 5.13.13 Wall Street Building SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage V5 EXISTING SOUTHEAST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED SOUTHEAST VIEW D 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING NORTH VIEW 970.471 .6122 :Z' N N) C) W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 Wall Street Building SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED NORTH VIEW v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage EXISTING NORTHWEST VIEW 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 v N N O W SUMAN A R C H I T E C T S Wall Street Buildina SCHEMATIC DESIGN - Town of Vail PEC Review Palckage PROPOSED NORTHWEST VIEW 10 141 East Meadow Drive, Suite 211 Vail, CO 81657 970.471.6122 ((:K TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 2013 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Kurz Susan Bird Bill Pierce Henry Pratt Luke Cartin MEMBERS ABSENT John Rediker Pam Hopkins Site Visit: 1. Lot 6 Spraddle Creek — 1067 Riva Glen Road 2. Wall Street Building — 225 Wall Street 3. Vail Golf Course Hole 19 - 2100 South Frontage Road East 4. Riva Ridge North Unit 630- 133 Willow Place 45 minutes A request for the review of a variance from Section 12- 7B -15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of additions in excess of the prescribed site coverage; and a request for the review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12 -7B -7, Exterior Alterations and Modifications, Vail Town Code, to the allow for the construction of additions, located at 225 Wall Street/ Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130008, PEC130009) Applicant: Wall Street Commercial, LLC, represented by Suman Architects Planner: Warren Campbell VARIANCE: ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. This variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated major exterior alteration application. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION: ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 3 -2 -0 (Pierce & Bird opposed) CONDITION(S): 1. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall mitigate the 0.70 employee impact created by this commercial addition in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code. 3. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with a pedestrian easement paralleling the extent of the east fagade of the Wall Street Building which shall be from the building fagade to the property line prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy. The pedestrian easement shall provide for unobstructed pedestrian access. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. 7 1I Michael Suman gave a presentation per the plans. He highlighted that the details on the fagade materials and store fronts were not determined and would be address with the Design Review Board. Commissioner Pierce asked if there was any public comment. There was no public comment. Commissioner Kurz stated that he felt the changes that were made to the plans addressed the concern he had including the provision of some shade. He spoke to the need to focus on the fenestration of the facade and "bring some Vail to the building." Commissioner Pratt expressed a concern with the infill of the arcade with a glass fagade which would eliminate the ability for outdoor display of goods which is a part of the life and fabric of the Village. He is in support of the easement requested by staff to maintain unobstructed pedestrian circulation on Wall Street. Commissioner Pierce asked if the easement were a part of the application Warren Campbell expressed that the staff was requesting the easement and the applicant did not express opposition to the easement during their presentation. Commissioner Cartin inquired as to who would be reviewing the landscaping in conjunction with the application. Warren Campbell stated that he would be measuring the area of the proposal to ensure there was no net loss in area and the Design Review Board would be reviewing the planting materials to be put in place. Michael Suman stated that he will also work with Public Works to ensure that their input is gathered on the streetscape intent. He restated there would be a one for one square foot of landscaping replacement of landscaping on the east fagade. Commissioner Bird inquired if there would be any operable windows in the store fronts as she identified that there is no air conditioning in the building and it gets hot in the summer based on her experience of working in the building. Michael Suman stated that that there would be operable windows. In order to get some cross - flow of air windows may be added to the west elevation. Commissioner Pierce stated that the location of the fire pit on Wall Street and the proposed infill of the arcade would make pedestrian circulation uncomfortable and tight. He added that if the fire pit were relocated or removed he might be able to view the proposal more favorably. He added that he felt the store front openings are inappropriate for the Village as identified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. He concluded by stating that he felt the changes made to the first floor retail infill on the northeast corner were a positive. Commissioner Kurz noted for the record that special event promotions are available and could be used to promote businesses in the building in the future. 15 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -61-1-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the interior conversion of an existing loft and addition to the roof in the front and side setbacks, located at 133 Willow Place (Riva Ridge) Unit 630/ Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130015) Applicant: Riva Ridge 26, LLC, represented by Michael Suman Architects 7 1�, Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approve with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall mitigate the construction of 176 square feet of GRFA, pursuant to Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum Michael Suman stated that he was available for any questions. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their belief that the proposal was in compliance with the criteria. 20 minutes 3. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building envelope, located at 1067 Riva Glen Road /Lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130011) Applicant: Michael Noell, represented by Mike Foster of Triumph Custom Homes Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant shall record the plat entitled, Amended Final Plat, Spraddle Creek Estates, Lot 6, Town Of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, prior to the submittal of a building permit application. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the need for the homeowners association for Spraddle Creek Estates to approve the application. Warren Campbell stated that yes the homeowners association and architectural review committee have been reviewing the plans and concepts and that they were currently in agreement with the proposal. Commissioner Kurz asked if there were geologic hazards present on the site. Warren Campbell stated that there were several geologic hazards on the site (medium severity rockfall and moderate hazard debris flow) as well as slopes which required compliance with the hazard chapter of the Vail Town Code for excessive slopes. He added that the applicant was aware of these impacts and the need to address them. 15 minutes 4. A request for the review of a flood plain modification permit, pursuant to Section 12- 21 -11, Flood Hazard Zones, Vail Town Code, to allow for the modification of the flood plain associated with Gore Creek, generally located at 2100 South Frontage Road East (Vail Golf Course)/U n platted 7P�01 3 parcel (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130013) Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Scott O'Connell Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 4 -0 -0 Commissioner Pierce recused himself as he had a conflict of interest. Joe Batcheller gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz clarified for the record that a 19 hole course is not being proposed, but is an additional hole to be put in play when another hole is taken out of play for maintenance, reconfiguration, or other work. Scott O'Connell explained that the tee for the "19th hole" is shared with the tee box for hole 12. Hole 19 does not come after hole 18. This has been a part of the master plan for a number of years. It allows for greater flexibility in opening holes early in the season and continues 18 hole play if bunker work or grass needs additional time to recover from winter impacts. This is not specifically for the 18th hole changes that are anticipated. Tom Kassmel, Floodplain Coordinator, stated he had reviewed the reports and had nothing to add, but was available for any questions. There was no public comment. 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan, an assemblage of the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment, located at 530, 540, and 580 South Frontage Road East /Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130012) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to June 10, 2013 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird VOTE: 5 -0 -0 6. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units per acre to facilitate the construction of two single - family residences, located at 1183 and 1191 Casolar Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130010) Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 10, 2013 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird VOTE: 5 -0 -0 7. A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -7D -2, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a drive -up facility, located at 2171 North Frontage Road West (McDonald's) /Lot 2B, Vail Das Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130014) Applicant: McDonald's USA, LLC, represented by Robert Palmer Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to June 10, 2013 714 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird 8. Approval of April 22, 2013 minutes MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Kurz 9. Information Update VOTE: 5 -0 -0 VOTE: 5 -0 -0 George Ruther gave an update on the Ford Park Master Plan and the schedule moving forward. George Ruther invited the Commissioners to an open house meeting the Town of Vail is hosting regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center master planning effort which is beginning. 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 4 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 10, 2013 in the Vail Daily. 718 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 2, 2013 ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (7:50 p.m.) 7/2/2013 rowH Of vn' �ii> Tammy Nagel From: Pam Brandmeyer Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:42 PM To: George Ruther; Matt Mire Cc: Tammy Nagel; Meryl Jacobs Subject: FW: 225 Wall Street Building / Lazier Arcade - Appeal of PEC approval with conditions From: Gwen Scalpello [ mailto :gscalpello @attglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:07 AM To: Council Dist List Subject: 225 Wall Street Building / Lazier Arcade - Appeal of PEC approval with conditions Dear Council Members, I wish to submit comments to item 7 on the evening agenda for July 2, appeal of the PEC approval with conditions ... 225 Wall Street /Lot B as I am unable to attend the meeting. Some of these comments have been made at a PEC meeting as well: 1- With respect to the site coverage variance: My first instinct is to question why one would approve such a variance for a renovation when it would not be approved for new construction (Staff memorandum, page 1, Item I Summary). However, given the statistics quoted in the staff memorandum regarding site coverage of other buildings in Commercial Core I, it appears the variance requested is within reason. It also appears the underlying zoning specifications should be reviewed, since so many buildings are well beyond the 80% site coverage allowed. 2 - With respect to the addition at the south end of the building: a. Staff Memorandum, Page 7, Item VII -1 specifically states that the infill of the space between the current building and the property line will negatively impact any future improvements to the Hong Kong building with respect to compliance with Town of Vail Building Code. To allow one building to improve at the expense of another building's improvement potential should be carefully considered. b. Having found no proposed basement plan in the package, I assume the basement would be expanded or new foundations built for the extension. If shoring of this addition requires that the foundation be somehow tied in to the Hong Kong building, that should be understood so that that owner's approval can be secured. 3 - With respect to the revisions on the east side of the building: The Wall Street building certainly is not the most imaginative building in Vail, but it does today offer more interest than the character -less proposed revisions appear to contribute. I have read carefully the critique and suggestions offered by Jeff Winston and strongly recommend you consider them in your review. The straight facade of glass windows and doors, the narrow breaks, the rectilinear stone and the narrowing of the pedestrian walkway all seem incompatible with the building itself, the surrounding area and the village design guidelines. 4 - With respect to the revisions on the north side of the building: As with the east facade, I believe the new window plan on the first floor is incompatible with the building, the surroundng buildings and the village design guidelines. Gwen Scalpello Vail U-16 Ek", W OL* h Questions submitted by Gwen Scalpello July 2, 2013 1 - With respect to the site coverage variance: My first instinct is to question why one would approve such a variance for a renovation when it would not be approved for new construction (Staff memorandum, page 1, Item I Summary). However, given the statistics quoted in the staff memorandum regarding site coverage of other buildings in Commercial Core I, it appears the variance requested is within reason. It also appears the underlying zoning specifications should be reviewed, since so many buildings are well beyond the 80% site coverage allowed. Staff response — In recommending approval of the variance staff considered the fact that the structure is existing and was in place prior to existing the zoning being applied. The redevelopment of a site would be required to meet a higher standard and comply with all development standards. As noted in the memo the approval of the requested variance does not establish a new maximum allowable site coverage for any redevelopment of the site. 2 - With respect to the addition at the south end of the building: a. Staff Memorandum, Page 7, Item VII -1 specifically states that the infill of the space between the current building and the property line will negatively impact any future improvements to the Hong Kong building with respect to compliance with Town of Vail Building Code. To allow one building to improve at the expense of another building's improvement potential should be carefully considered. Staff response — In the memorandum staff identifies that there are impacts to the adjacent building which result from a zero setback. Staff does not state there are negative impacts. The owner of the Hong Kong building is aware of the proposal and in agreement with the infill and connection to his building. b. Having found no proposed basement plan in the package, I assume the basement would be expanded or new foundations built for the extension. If shoring of this addition requires that the foundation be somehow tied in to the Hong Kong building, that should be understood so that that owner's approval can be secured. Staff response — There is no basement (below grade) level expansion approved beneath the commercial infill. There will be a footer which will require minimal excavation and will not be tied into the Hong Kong building structure. The two structures will remain independent in terms of structure. 3 - With respect to the revisions on the east side of the building: The Wall Street building certainly is not the most imaginative building in Vail, but it does today offer more interest than the character -less proposed revisions appear to contribute. I have read carefully the critique and suggestions offered by Jeff Winston and strongly recommend you consider them in your review. The straight facade of glass windows and doors, the narrow breaks, the rectilinear stone and the narrowing of the pedestrian walkway all seem incompatible with the building itself, the surrounding area and the village design guidelines. Staff response — This proposal has not been reviewed by the Design Review Board. The project will be required to comply with zoning, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations. 4 - With respect to the revisions on the north side of the building: As with the east facade, I believe the new window plan on the first floor is incompatible with the building, the surroundng buildings and the village design guidelines. Staff response — This proposal has not been reviewed by the Design Review Board. The project will be required to comply with zoning, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations.