HomeMy WebLinkAboutFairmont Vail Meeting Notes 08-0819 DRAFT DRAFT
Fairmont Vail Design Meeting Notes:
PROJECT: Fairmont Vail Hotel and Resort, Vail, Colorado
SB Project No. 2812
DATE OF MEETING: 2:00pm to 4:45pm, August 19, 2008
PLACE OF MEETING: Vail Planning offices
Vail, Colorado
PURPOSE OF MEETING: Informal work session with Vail Planning and Public
Works to follow up on issues discussed in July 14th meeting
Attendees: Vail Public Works – Tom Kasmell (1st hour)
Vail Community Development – Warren Campbell, Rachel Friede
SB Architects –Bruce Wright, David Louie
ARC – Adam Williams, Bryan Caruthers
Work Session #1 – Public Works Discussion, 2:00 pm
1. Loading Dock Access
a. SBA is so far not able to make truck access and backing distances work for 40’
semi-trailer access.
b. Still restricted to right turn in and out. Left turn lane would trigger the need for a
controlled intersection and alignment with curb cut across the street.
c. Tom suggested a scheme where trucks overshoot the dock entry within the 30 foot
easement, and then back into the dock. Location of existing parking structure
prevents this from working.
d. Vail Town Code specifies the size of truck to be served.
e. Option for internal lay-by lane with two curb cuts is possible, but not desirable.
Tom said the width of curb cuts and loss of planted area is primary concern.
CDOT will need to buy off on the third curb cut.
f. Warren suggested accessing the lay-by lane from the porte cochere drive. SBA
noted this is not workable from a guest experience standpoint.
2. Fire Truck Access and Staging
a. Tom can’t speak for Mike Vaughan, but there is precedent on similar newer
project for fire trucks to back out of their staging areas into the roadway without
the need for a turnaround space.
b. The Fire Marshall will not want his trucks to drive underneath any structure
associated with the project.
3. Utilities Easement – 30 feet
a. Transformers and emergency generators may be located at-grade within the 30 foot
easement. Holy Cross will not allow vault locations.
b. May encroach upon easement with actual building footprint if the existing utility
lines are undisturbed or if we are willing to cover the cost of relocation. All
separate utilities companies will have to sign off on the encroachment.
c. Foundation encroachment may help utilities with future utilities maintenance, as
the foundation wall will act as a retaining wall for any required excavation.
d. Location of all utilities – gas, electrical, water and sewer – within the easement
should be completed ASAP, as it will indicate whether we propose encroachment.
Need plan view showing utilities locations and building section to show that
excavation equipment has required clearance to underside of any cantilevered
building elements.
4. Pedestrian Path Easement
a. TJ does not want to propose abandoning or altering the easement if it lengthens
the entitlements process – Town Council review.
b. Encroachment of balconies above pedestrian height is possible, as long as the
vertical and horizontal path clearances are maintained – no tunnels either.
c. Encroachment of below grade area may also be allowed, as long as the 6 foot path
is maintained.
d. Could propose reducing the width of the easement to 10’ in exchange for pathway
improvements and a temporary 6’ easement to access the path.
e. If only the portion of path leading up to the restaurant is improved, an agreement
could stipulate that the owners of the resort would pay for completing the path
improvements if/when the parking garage is demolished and the easement can link
to the Frontage Road.
5. Pedestrian Path at Middle Creek
a. SBA proposes that a 6 foot wide pedestrian path occurs along the west side of
Middle Creek on the Middle Creek tract owned by the TOV.
b. May expect some resistance from Vail International.
c. 6’ width may be reduced if needed to maintain existing trees.
d. Some pedestrian traffic already occurs along west side of Middle Creek.
e. A new Qwest phone line will be located in an easement on west side of Middle
Creek
f. Retaining walls are allowable – should be achieved with boulders, not concrete.
g. Grade is too steep to qualify for accessible path, but use of stairs should be
minimized.
h. Path behind the Vail Library is a good example of how this path might be
developed.
i. Transit stop will not be moved from current location in front of the bank.
6. Frontage Road Re-alignment
a. No scheduled plans for implementation of realignment developed to serve needs of
future convention center project – 4 to 5 years ago.
b. If we propose alteration of the realignment to better serve our project, TJ will bear
the cost of the roadway improvement.
c. SBA will continue to show schemes that work with current and proposed road
layouts.
Work Session #3 – Community Development Discussion, 3:00 pm
1. Absolute Maximum Height (MH) of maximum 82.5 feet
a. MH is measured from highest ridge of a primary gable or hip form to a point
directly below at either interpolated natural grade (ING) or finish grade (FG) –
whichever is more restrictive. MH is never measured to the top of lower roof
elements.
b. If the end of a roof ridge occurs directly over interior space within the building
footprint, then MH is measured to ING, not FG
c. If it serves our purposes, it is acceptable to add base elements that enclose interior
space to allow MH to be measured to ING rather than FG. There are no specific
depth or area requirements for base elements serving this purpose. A base element
does not need to be 12 foot in depth, but it does need to enclose conditioned space.
In the past, “Cheaters” have stepped the base floor out by 1 foot to meet this
requirement.
d. Based on discussions, it is still not clear whether sloped roof forms are required at
these base elements.
e. It is acceptable to establish a low FG by excavating an outdoor terrace space to
well below ING and use the base element to trigger the max. ht. measurement to
ING.
f. In cases where it is more favorable to measure to ING, it is possible to create gable
or hip dormers on the main roof form that are set (minimum 1 foot) back from
the footprint of the tower, to avoid having to measure to finish grade. Dutch
gables are another way of creating varied roof forms that are measured to ING.
g. In cases where the tip of a gable is barely exceeding MH, clipping the gable tip is a
common way to get the building back into compliance.
h. Main roof forms are any gable or hip roof element that comprises more than 500 sf
in plan. Shed roof and flat roof forms do not qualify as main roof forms.
2. Average Height (AH) maximum of 71 feet.
a. AH is measured segment by segment from the primary roof ridge line down to
ING or FG, whichever is more restrictive. AH is never measured to the top of
lower roof elements.
b. AH requires that any roof forms that barely meet MH restrictions be offset by an
equal amount of lower roof areas.
c. Lower roof forms at base of building can be included in the AH calculations as
long as they exceed 500 sf AND have either gable or hip roofs from which a ridge
line may be determined. Enclosure of interior space is not required (porte cochere
canopy) for inclusion in average height calculation.
3. Architectural Features
a. Confirmed that columns and retaining walls used to enclose terraces and balconies
are considered architectural features and may encroach up to 4 feet into the
setback.
b. Enclosed interior space may not encroach on the setback.
c. Can be used to create a base element for the building for purpose of achieving
façade articulation, but will not qualify as a step in the building façade since they
are neither deep enough nor interior space.
4. Wall expanse
a. Confirmed that change in color and materials can be used in lieu of 2 foot step to
create the required break in building to avoid maximum 35 feet vertical wall
expanse – subject to planning review.
5. Building Frontage Step (page 8-19 of Chapter 8)
a. Our project is neither primary retail pedestrian frontage or ski yard/open space
frontage. Each of these is more restrictive than our site requires.
b. 12 foot step in building face is required within the first 60 feet of building façade.
Step must enclose interior space.
c. Eave height is the distance from finished grade to the initial primary eave.
d. Gable faces of buildings are measured to their eaves. Wall area within the gable
form is excluded from the step requirement.
e. Other breaks in vertical wall are also required, i.e., max. 35’ wall expanse and base
level articulation.
f. Once the 12 foot step requirement has been met in the first 60’ of façade, SBA
contends that the code places no further restrictions on maximum eave height.
Warren and Rachel to review further and make an interpretation.
g. Per Rachel, the 12 foot deep element must also have a sloping roof form to qualify
as a step in building in building façade. SBA requests confirmation of this, as we
would like to use a roof terrace element to serve this function.
6. Exceeding Maximum Height
a. Elevator overruns, chimneys and mechanical spaces may exceed the max. height
restrictions by 15’ or 25%, whichever is more restrictive.
END
THE ABOVE NOTES REPRESENT OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ACTION, DISCUSSION AND DECISIONS OF THIS
MEETING. COPIES OF THESE NOTES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING. ANY
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WRITER WITHIN 5
WORKING DAYS.
THESE NOTES EMAILED TO THE TEAM ON 8/21/08 BY: David Louie, Project Manager, SB Architects